What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[Marcia]

Hi Marcia :wavey:

This is a tough subject for me, so I would like to get your opinion.

If we didn't have a sin nature, would we sin?

That is a good question. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but they sinned, so my answer is: Yes, it's possible we would sin without a sin nature.

 

[Amy.G]

That is a good question. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but they sinned, so my answer is: Yes, it's possible we would sin without a sin nature.

That's what I think as well, which is why the sin nature thing is confusing to me. I know we die physically because of Adam's sin, but I don't think we die spiritually (separation from God) until we commit sin willfully. That's why I posted Paul's statement earlier.

Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

He says he was once alive, but then he died. I think he's saying that he was alive spiritually until he understood the law and transgressed it, at which point he died spiritually.

 

[Marcia]

That's what I think as well, which is why the sin nature thing is confusing to me. I know we die physically because of Adam's sin, but I don't think we die spiritually (separation from God) until we commit sin willfully. That's why I posted Paul's statement earlier.

Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

He says he was once alive, but then he died. I think he's saying that he was alive spiritually until he understood the law and transgressed it, at which point he died spiritually.

But this is in the context of the law. The law showed him his sin. He talks about the law as death and as bringing death. This is not about the sin nature. Paul is also clear, I believe, and all Christians I know believe, that we are born with a sin nature. I think this is what most of Romans is based on.

If one is born without sin, then one can technically exist without needing a Savior.

Orthodox Christian belief is that man has a sin nature and is born this way.

 

[Amy.G]

But this is in the context of the law. The law showed him his sin. He talks about the law as death and as bringing death. This is not about the sin nature. Paul is also clear, I believe, and all Christians I know believe, that we are born with a sin nature. I think this is what most of Romans is based on.

If one is born without sin, then one can technically exist without needing a Savior.

Orthodox Christian belief is that man has a sin nature and is born this way.

I'm not disagreeing with you about having a sin nature. I'm just saying that until we understand what sin is, we are not held accountable for it.
Paul "died" because he understood the law and at that moment he knew he had sinned. (he died)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I'm not disagreeing with you about having a sin nature. I'm just saying that until we understand what sin is, we are not held accountable for it.
Paul "died" because he understood the law and at that moment he knew he had sinned. (he died)

HP: I believe you have a good grasp of the truth.:thumbsup:

My point would be, why call it a sin nature if it is not sin until you yield your will to moral selfishness subsequent to the age of accountability? There is no indication whatsoever that our nature that is properly classified as sinful develops as sinful until after moral agency. Before moral agency we have a proclivity to sin, a weakness, so to speak, a bent towards moral selfishness, but even then it develops through childhood and culminates, it does not start as sinful or actual sin.

Every time the word nature is used one has no right to simply assume that it must mean 'sinful from birth,' as those holding to constitutional moral depravity, (original sin,) try to get it to walk on all four legs in support of. Ones moral nature, one that moral blameworthiness or moral praiseworthiness, is properly predicated of their intents, is developed over time. No ‘moral’ nature is even possible until one makes their first moral choice that God accounts to them as sin or righteousness. They can have a formidable inclination to sin, but it is not sin, nor their nature sinful, until they first yield their wills in accordance to sin subsequent to the age of accountability.

Any notion of original sin, or constitutional depravity, places sin in the realm of the physical and not in the will. That was Augustine’s position and his downfall in the issue. Sin is not passed on by physical generation. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God.

 

[trustitl]

But this is in the context of the law. The law showed him his sin. He talks about the law as death and as bringing death. This is not about the sin nature. Paul is also clear, I believe, and all Christians I know believe, that we are born with a sin nature. I think this is what most of Romans is based on.

If one is born without sin, then one can technically exist without needing a Savior.

Orthodox Christian belief is that man has a sin nature and is born this way.

Paul no doubt is giving the law as his context in Romans 7. However in the early part of his letter he provides a way to understand how guilt is established for those without the law. Becoming a law unto themselves, people produce their own standard. Those who have not reached the point of being able to do this would be free from this standard and therefore unable to be judged by it.

Plantinga (this is the correct spelling btw) and other Covenant theologians have contrived their own answer to be that the parent's faith saves them from the curse of sin they were allegedly conceived under. I went to Calvin College from whence Plantinga comes, but have obviously left the Plantinga plantation. According to their Belgic Confession I am an abhorrent heretic as you would be too if you do not believe in infant baptism.

Saying this leads to some not needing a savior is a red herring. Even the animals who have not sinned need the savior and are groaning with all creation waiting to be delivered. A child born in innocence is still under the curse of sin and needs a savior. However, it is not for his sin because he has not had a chance to commit any.

Orthodox? Probably not, but who gets to decide what doctrine I am supposed to conform to.

 

[DHK]

Paul no doubt is giving the law as his context in Romans 7. However in the early part of his letter he provides a way to understand how guilt is established for those without the law. Becoming a law unto themselves, people produce their own standard. Those who have not reached the point of being able to do this would be free from this standard and therefore unable to be judged by it.

Paul sometimes refers to the law, but most of the time refers to "a law."

Romans 7:17-18 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

There is no reference to the law here; only basic principles of his own sin nature.
Sin dwells in me, he says. He refers, not to the law, but to his sin nature.
Again referring to his sin nature, he describes how it acts, and what it is:
First, it is carnal, and in my nature there is nothing good. He is not good.
Second, because of that sin nature he cannot do that which is good by nature.
By nature, he is prone to do evil. In these verses the sin nature is fully described.

Paul moves on to chapter 8. The carnal mind represents the sin nature that wars against the Holy Spirit. It also represents the sin nature that is not saved.

Romans 8:7-9 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

It is clear. A person that has a sin nature, and not a Spiritual nature, regenerated by God, is doomed. There is no "neutral state," not even in infants. We are born this way. The carnal mind is enmity against God. How did it get that way. We were born that way. It needs to be regenerated. They that are in the flesh cannot please God; that includes infants. They are in the flesh. Only God's mercy can take them to heaven. They don't deserve it; none of us do.

 

[trustitl]

DHK,

You ended your post with the key: the flesh. You and others have turned the flesh into "a sinful nature" a term found no where in scripture (save the modern translations that have turned "sarx" into sinful nature). We come into this world in sinful flesh, just like Jesus did. He was not a sinner because he did not act according to his flesh. We all have acted in accordance with the flesh and therefore become sinners when we sin: the standard being the law for the Jews and the "law unto themselves standard" for Gentiles.

The only remedy for this condition is killing the flesh. God knew that and sent Christ to die in our place. Praise God I have been crucified, have risen in newness of life and am no longer under the dominion of the flesh.

If you want to keep trying to crucify your sinful nature go ahead, but the Word of God is clear. Christ came in the flesh for a reason. I think we sadly have been focusing on the deity of Christ and have failed to elevate the importance of his humanity. John understood this and went to lengths to defend Christ coming in the flesh.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 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.

And I won't even go into chapter 8 which is crystal clear for those who have ears to hear.

 

[Marcia]

I'm not disagreeing with you about having a sin nature. I'm just saying that until we understand what sin is, we are not held accountable for it.
Paul "died" because he understood the law and at that moment he knew he had sinned. (he died)

It's dangerous to take any passage out of context of the whole of scripture. Scripture must be compared to scripture, and the whole of scripture does say we are sinful.

It depends on what you mean by accountability. A baby would not be accountable for specific sins the way you and I would, of course, but a baby still has a sin nature and needs redemption.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by DHK:
It is clear. A person that has a sin nature, and not a Spiritual nature, regenerated by God, is doomed. There is no "neutral state," not even in infants. We are born this way. The carnal mind is enmity against God. How did it get that way. We were born that way. It needs to be regenerated. They that are in the flesh cannot please God; that includes infants. They are in the flesh. Only God's mercy can take them to heaven. They don't deserve it; none of us do.

I agree with DHK, and so does the whole of orthodox biblical historical Christianity. This is the biblical view.

No one is born not separated from God because all have the taint of sin at birth. To believe one can be born with no sin in them (or without a sin nature) goes against Gen. 3, Romans. 5 and numerous other passages. It would also mean that one is born able to face God on his/her own righteousness.

 

[Marcia]

You ended your post with the key: the flesh. You and others have turned the flesh into "a sinful nature" a term found no where in scripture (save the modern translations that have turned "sarx" into sinful nature). We come into this world in sinful flesh, just like Jesus did. He was not a sinner because he did not act according to his flesh. We all have acted in accordance with the flesh and therefore become sinners when we sin: the standard being the law for the Jews and the "law unto themselves standard" for Gentiles.

The only remedy for this condition is killing the flesh. God knew that and sent Christ to die in our place. Praise God I have been crucified, have risen in newness of life and am no longer under the dominion of the flesh.

If you want to keep trying to crucify your sinful nature go ahead, but the Word of God is clear. Christ came in the flesh for a reason. I think we sadly have been focusing on the deity of Christ and have failed to elevate the importance of his humanity. John understood this and went to lengths to defend Christ coming in the flesh.

It is not the flesh that is evil; it is fallen, but it is the whole nature of an unredeemed person that is evil - mind, heart, lusts of the flesh (not the flesh in and of it itself), spirit, etc. is in rebellion against God. Jesus came in the flesh in order to die for our sins; he had to be made like man in order to die for man. Hebrews 2 clearly delineates this.

14Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You ended your post with the key: the flesh. You and others have turned the flesh into "a sinful nature" a term found no where in scripture (save the modern translations that have turned "sarx" into sinful nature). We come into this world in sinful flesh, just like Jesus did. He was not a sinner because he did not act according to his flesh. We all have acted in accordance with the flesh and therefore become sinners when we sin: the standard being the law for the Jews and the "law unto themselves standard" for Gentiles.

The only remedy for this condition is killing the flesh. God knew that and sent Christ to die in our place. Praise God I have been crucified, have risen in newness of life and am no longer under the dominion of the flesh.

Your view sounds like gnosticism where the actual flesh is evil, and the spiritual is good. That was one of the first heresies that was prevalent at the time of the Apostles. The Apostle John writes against it in his first epistle. There is nothing sinful about our flesh, per se. The flesh refers to our sinful nature.

Paul, at the end of chapter 7, after describing this painful battle warring within him--the battle of his sinful nature against the spiritual nature--cries out in desperation:

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
--The body itself is only a tabernacle; it is temporary. It someday will be changed into a glorious body. That is not what Paul is referring to. He is speaking of what is inside--the sinful nature. He gives the answer in the next verse.

Romans 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.
--The mind is where the battle takes place. We are commanded to have the mind of Christ--to yield our minds to the Holy Spirit. The mind is sometimes used as a synonym for the heart. Jesus said out of the abundance of the heart comes:

Mark 7:21-22 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
--The heart is the mind. Give into your flesh and you give into sin. There is a battle in your mind, your heart. Who or what sits on the throne of your heart?

"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
I must crucify daily the flesh. That is, I must reckon it to be dead. That doesn't mean I kill myself.

Look back to Romans 6:
Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Live as though you are dead to sin. When sin comes you are dead to it. You say no to sin, and yes to Christ. That is what it means to crucify the flesh. Paul did it every day.

1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Jesus demanded it of his disciples:
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
--Jesus died on the cross; so did two thieves. It was the common form of execution. It is symbolic of death. Put yourself to death--every day. That is what it means to take up your cross--to die daily--to say no to the flesh every day, and say yest to Christ; to the Holy Spirit; to what God wants you to do.

Paul doesn't talk of the flesh--atoms, molecuiles, etc. He speaks of a sinful nature. Tell me: what is sinful about neutrons, electrons, and protons--that which the body is made up of?

 

[trustitl]

Rather than do a typical cut and paste refutation of things I disagree with, I will try to cover a number of issues in the last few posts.

To say that I am a gnostic is a weak red herring with no substance. Flesh is not evil, it is merely a tool. The NRA likes to say that guns do not kill people, people do. In the same way flesh does not sin. As DHK said "Give into your flesh and you give into sin." I wouldn't quite say it like that but I think I agree. I give into the flesh when I put a coat on because just last week it was -21 F here. I give into the flesh every night by going to bed after dealing with 6 of my own kids and 4 foster children. Neither of these are sin for me.

In addition, I do not think that spirit is good. I think every man alive has a living spirit. This does not make him good, it merely makes him "man", created in the image of God. If one were to be spiritually dead he would not exist.

 

[trustitl]

Continuing on:

Romans 5 gives no support for the position that flesh is fallen. Just like flesh is not evil, it is not fallen. It is under a curse and is corruptible because of having no access to the tree of life. Adam would have lived forever after "falling". Read Genesis 3 that was also said to support this false position.

Flesh cannot be evil for Christ came in it. His flesh was subject to the same curse ours is. His flesh was corruptible. His flesh lusted. The Hebrews passage that was quoted proves this perfectly. Hebrews 2:19 says it perfectly "it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren".

Were his flesh not the same as ours he would not be able say that he was tempted like us which the writer of Hebrews clearly points out is the case in 4:15 saying he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

 

[trustitl]

Finally (at least for now):

The only way for us to be free from the power of sin is for the flesh to be killed. DHK says he crucifies his flesh daily. He clearly does not believe this for he says that he needs to do the biblical thing: in his words "That is, I must reckon it to be dead." He admits he doesn't kill himself but goes wrong in saying that Paul crucified himself daily (words Paul never says).

The I Corinthians 15:31 passage is sadly taken out of context and is used to say that Paul is doing this "reckoning" we just talked about. The context is clear from the previous verse: 30 "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" and again in verse 32 where he says he "fought with beasts at Ephesus". Obviously Paul is talking about facing literal death, the broader context of chapter 15 rather than some deeper Christian life method of dying to self.

In Luke 9 Jesus is clearly teaching his disciples about the reality of facing literal death: something he was about to do and what they would all be doing in the near future. Some of these men actually did take up their cross as have persecuted Christian over the last 2000 years. We belittle their sacrifice by saying we are taking up a cross by not living after the flesh. I have never had to take up a cross as have very few modern day American believers. I hope I would were the test come.

In conclusion Paul tells the Galatians that he IS crucified with Christ not that he needs to be crucified. It is the reality for all believers not some advanced state of spirituality that few reach. The newest babe in Christ is in this reality and can live by faith as Paul did. As he concludes chapter 5 in verse 24 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: "Give into your flesh and you give into sin."

HP: TrustitL has made some excellent points. His comments on this remark of DHK was one of those. Possibly DHK would like to qualify or retract this comment, or does he really thing that any time one allows the flesh to command His will that such is sin? Can the flesh desire good and healthy things? Can it send signals to the mind of such things as an injury? Is it sin to allow ones will to act in direct response to such an impulse of the sensibilities?

 

[Marcia]

I am not sure what is meant by "flesh" in the way it is being used here.

But if our bodies are not fallen, then they don't need to be redeemed. Well, clearly our bodies will be redeemed. They are fallen - this does not mean they are evil.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: But if our bodies are not fallen, then they don't need to be redeemed. Well, clearly our bodies will be redeemed. They are fallen - this does not mean they are evil.

HP: How can our bodies be fallen and not evil? What does the fallen mean to you? Fallen how? Fallen from what?

Can something be fallen and yet not blameworthy? If it is not blameworthy, why would it need to be redeemed? Where does Scripture ever state that our bodies need to be redeemed because they are fallen?

 

[DHK]

Rather than do a typical cut and paste refutation of things I disagree with, I will try to cover a number of issues in the last few posts.

To say that I am a gnostic is a weak red herring with no substance.

Don't go off the deep end and be so offended. What did I say? Here it is again:

Your view sounds like gnosticism where the actual flesh is evil, and the spiritual is good.

I did not call you a gnostic did I? I said your view sounds like gnosticism. There is no need to take such offense. And BTW, it still sounds related to gnosticism. You haven't convinced me yet.

Flesh is not evil, it is merely a tool. The NRA likes to say that guns do not kill people, people do. In the same way flesh does not sin. As DHK said "Give into your flesh and you give into sin." I wouldn't quite say it like that but I think I agree. I give into the flesh when I put a coat on because just last week it was -21 F here. I give into the flesh every night by going to bed after dealing with 6 of my own kids and 4 foster children. Neither of these are sin for me.

No, you are giving into your emotional state. That is not the same as your sinful nature which the Bible means when it uses the word "flesh".

1 John 2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

2 Peter 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
--You say you give into your flesh when you go to bed. Not true. At least it is not true if you are being obedient to the Lord and getting the sleep you need in order to get up and get to work in the morning. It would be sin to give into the flesh if you ignore your alarm clock on the next working day, sleep in half the day, and ignore your responsibilities to your employer and to your family. That is giving in to your flesh, emotions, feelings--the feeling to desire sleep rather than work--slothfulness.

Notice the admonition John gives against worldliness and how God hates it. The love of the Father is not in that person who loves the world. What is in the world? One thing is called "the lust of the flesh." How does the flesh lust? How do electrons, neutrons, protons, carry out the action of lusting? The flesh is not this hunk of meat that covers my bone. That is not how it is defined in the Bible. The "flesh" is something that can "do" "operate" has a will; it can lust. It is alive. It is the sin nature that dwells in you, and the Lord hates it, for it loves the world, and it is the enemy of God.

In addition, I do not think that spirit is good. I think every man alive has a living spirit. This does not make him good, it merely makes him "man", created in the image of God. If one were to be spiritually dead he would not exist.

Go back to my post and read it again carefully.
I never once referred to the human spirit. I contrasted the sin nature and the Spirit of God. One has a choice: to yield himself to his own fleshly desires, or to yield himself to God, the Holy Spirit. Which will a person take? The choice is theirs--theirs to crucify their flesh each day, on a daily basis, just as Paul did. "I die daily" (1Cor.15:31b). Yes, that is what it means.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I did not call you a gnostic did I? I said your view sounds like gnosticism. There is no need to take such offense. And BTW, it still sounds related to gnosticism. You haven't convinced me yet.

HP: What is the difference between saying one’s arguments sound like Gnosticism and one saying that another’s arguments sound like Calvinism? If one is against the rules, why not the other??? Why would one take offense at one comparison and yet wonder why others would be upset about a like comment just using a different object of comparison?