Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Scientists once thought there was a physical substance called phlogiston that was released when things burned. It was interesting stuff because it had no color, odor, taste, or weight. In other words, it was undetectable. They speculated that the ash was the essence of wood after the phlogiston escaped. Then they discovered that combustion is a chemical process, and discarded the false notion of phlogiston as not corresponding to anything in the real world.

Likewise, scientists once thought there was a physical substance called the ether that was required to carry light waves. They could not conceive how light could travel through a vacuum. They thought that all waves, like sound waves in the air or waves in the water, needed a medium to undulate. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that it, like the phlogiston before it, was undetectable. Apparently, scientists had had enough with "undetectable substances", and so they discarded the false notion of the ether too.

In both of these cases, science advanced by recognizing that the physical substances postulated in their theories did not correspond to anything in the real world. Attempts to formulate theories based on such false notions of reality were doomed to failure.

The same is true for the Christian understanding of the world that God created.

I think the idea of the "sin nature" is the theological equivalent of phlogiston and ether.

It does not correspond to anything in the real world addressed in Scripture.

It seems that theologians have confused the very real and biblical teaching about the flesh with a theological construct called the "sin nature." Most of them speak as if it is some sort of physical contagion transmitted to the next generation only by the father, an idea they use to "explain" why Christ had to be born of a virgin.

Clarification of this issue brings a lot of light to our study of the Bible. For example, most people have been taught that we sin "because we have a sin nature." But that immediately raises the question of why Adam and Eve sinned, since they were created without a "sin nature." Once the "sin nature" is exposed as a false notion, we can easily see the elegant solution to this ancient conundrum. Adam and Eve were created as fleshly creatures, just like you and me. And what does the flesh do when it is not subject to the guidance of God's Spirit?

IT SINS.

It can't help it. How could it? It doesn't know what the mind of the Spirit is! How can it know the will of God? All it knows is its own desires and lusts. The flesh by itself can not please God. It is like a horse without a rider, run wild.

But remember, the flesh is not sinful by nature. True, it is very weak, and prone to sin, but we know it can not be intrinsically sinful because the Word (Christ) became flesh and dwelt amongst us, yet without sin. And again, we have proof from Genesis that the flesh is not intrinsically sinful. Adam and Eve were created as fleshly creatures, but had no sin until they disobeyed God.

So how did Adam and Eve sin without having a sin nature?

Simple! They were fleshly creatures, and the story makes it abundantly clear they were not in conscious communion with God when they sinned! And so, they acted as fleshly creatures not guided by God, and sinned. (Note how this relates to the challenges of our daily walk!) This is further confirmed by the description of what led up to their sin:

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

Sounds like a very fleshly temptation! Compare this with the classic sin passage:

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (make one wise?), is not of the Father, but is of the world.

So there it is. That's the basic idea I was hoping to share in this post. I think it leads to a magnificent harmony between Scripture and Reality that actually makes sense. And it is extremely satisfying to have a full understanding of Scripture without a mystical undetectable substance that has no "color, odor, taste, or weight."

There is much more to say on this matter, but I will wait for a response to what has been written. I am curious if these ideas make sense to other folks, and if not, why not.

I look forward to your comments.

RAM

[sylvius]

So how did Adam and Eve sin without having a sin nature?

wasn't Adam created with both good inclination and evil inclination?

expressed in the double "yud" with which "vayitzer" in Genesis 2:7 is written?

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

the one "yud" standing for "yetzer hatov" and the second "yud" standing for "yetzer hara"?

[shalag]

Gen 2:9 (12) And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 (10) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

In the beginning, God created, and pronounced it 'good'. Gen 2:9 (12) is in agreement with that - pleasant to the sight and good for food. It is the 'desire chet, mem, dalet/52) to be wise (shin/kaf/lamed/350 (with yud/360) (pride) that exposed the unbelief of truth.

If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?

1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would deception (nun, shin, alef/351), rather than temptation, be key?

Jesus, the Son (52) of God - was not deceived, was truth in flesh, and exposed unbelief.

John 16:8 (67/19th prime) And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 (68) of sin, because they do not believe in Me;

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Gen 2:9 (12) And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 (10) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

In the beginning, God created, and pronounced it 'good'. Gen 2:9 (12) is in agreement with that - pleasant to the sight and good for food. It is the 'desire chet, mem, dalet/52) to be wise (shin/kaf/lamed/350 (with yud/360) (pride) that exposed the unbelief of truth.

If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?

1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would deception (nun, shin, alef/351), rather than temptation, be key?

Jesus, the Son (52) of God - was not deceived, was truth in flesh, and exposed unbelief.

John 16:8 (67/19th prime) And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 (68) of sin, because they do not believe in Me;

Good points shalag.

In thinking this through, I knew we needed to ground it in unbelief, since that is the root of sin (whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom 14:23). That's why the idea of "competing internal wills" - like the classic image of a devil on each shoulder fighting to win the person over - does not seem to correspond to reality. It seems like another "phlogiston" theory to me. Like we start with a struggle between the flesh and the spirit (which the Bible teaches) and add to it the idea of an "evil will" that "likes" the flesh and a "good will" that "likes" the spirit. Why add those "things" - why not keep it simple?

So what is it about the flesh that causes it to sin? Is it that fact that the flesh knows nothing of the Spirit, and faith(fulness) is of the Spirit? That seems to be aiming in the right direction.

If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?

Absolutely. My point was to show that the root of sin was found not in a "sin nature" but in the flesh itself. But its not because the flesh is innately evil, but because the flesh not rule by the human spirit ruled by the Spirit of God can not please God because it does not know the will of God and so will sin. But this is not to say it is sinning because of "ignorance." It may well know the explicit commnands of God like "do not covet" but by its nature, it will covet anyway.

But that's just the flesh ... the SIN comes in when the whole person - the living soul (nephesh chiah = body + spirit, Gen 2:7) ignores God and choose to align itself with the desires of the flesh.

I knew this would take a little while to "flesh out" (I'm gonna have to make a smilie for a "bad pun groan").

One question: Why did you write the "1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin)"? I understand of course that 70 is the value of ayin, I was just wondering why you chose to put it there? Is it because the verse speaks of the fall in Genesis 3, and that story is saturated with ayin KeyWords (eyes/ayini opened, arum/naked, etc)?

RAM

[sylvius]

My point was to show that the root of sin was found not in a "sin nature" but in the flesh itself.

what then about Genesis 6:6?

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

commentary says: it repented the Lord that he had made Adam with an evil inclination = sin nature.

"vayinachem" = and it repented Him
you might also translate "and He found comfort in" -

verb "nacham" can have both meanings.

from this name "Menachem" , Comforter, name of the Messiah.

it is about the mystery of creation

God intended it that way.

if Adam wouldn't have sinned it wouldn't have been good at all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

what then about Genesis 6:6?

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

commentary says: it repented the Lord that he had made Adam with an evil inclination = sin nature.

"vayinachem" = and it repented Him
you might also translate "and He found comfort in" -

verb "nacham" can have both meanings.

from this name "Menachem" , Comforter, name of the Messiah.

it is about the mystery of creation

God intended it that way.

if Adam wouldn't have sinned it wouldn't have been good at all.

Yes, it touches the mystery of creation, and that's why its so very interesting! And significant, since its ramifications run through the whole body of Scripture.

But we are still turning around the same pole. It seems like you believe in the tradition that God created Adam with a "sin nature" = "yetzer hara". So before we go further, I need an answer to the question I asked earlier - does the Bible teach that we were created with a dual nature? Or does that idea come only from Jewish tradition?

I agree that "God intended it that way". But that's not question. The question is the origin of sin. Did God have to create Adam with a "sin nature" to enable him to sin, or did he only need to create him as a fleshly creature, and then leave him alone for a while? Note also that the idea of begin created with a sin nature contradicts the Christian tradition that Adam and Eve acquired a sin nature only after the first sin.

That's the fundamental point of my opening post: I discarded the unneeded metaphysical construct called a "sin nature" and found that I could understand everything in the Bible much more clearly. Of course, I could have missed something essential. That's what I'm hoping to find out in this thread.

[shalag]

One question: Why did you write the "1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin)"? I understand of course that 70 is the value of ayin, I was just wondering why you chose to put it there? Is it because the verse speaks of the fall in Genesis 3, and that story is saturated with ayin KeyWords (eyes/ayini opened, arum/naked, etc)?

1Timothy 2:14 states the woman is 'deceived' - not so much that she is lusting - but deceived, although both may be present.

First it is interesting to note that the word sin 'chatta'ah' is not stated until Gen 4:7 (12) and then only mentioned a total of four times in Genesis. The next occurences are in Gen 18:20 (39), the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah; Gen 31:36 (68), Jacob querying Laban 'what is my sin?'; Gen 50:17 (68), Joseph's brethren asking forgiveness for their trespass and their sin. In Exodus sin is first mentioned in connection with Pharoah (the evil mouth) requesting his sin be forgiven and then in Ex 29:14 (45) God establishes the 'sin offering'.

The primary root 'chata'/sin is recorded the first time in Gen 20:6 (27) in relation to Abraham's fear saying Sarah was his sister and Abimelech being refrained from 'touching' her because again the penalty is death. And in Gen 20:9 (30/lamed) Abimelech poses the same question to Abraham as God posed to the woman in the garden, "What have you done/ ayin/shin/hei/375)?

In one place is says - first death - then sin.
1Co 15:56 (117=3sq x 13) the sting of deathis sin.

In another it says first sin, then death.
Rom 5:12 (62) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

In the beginning - the issue was 'don't eat, don't touch/strike' because you will die.. Here it appears 'the sting of death was sin'.

In the 1Timothy verse the woman was deceived

1Ti (54) 2:14 (70) says the woman was deceived..

Eph 5:6 (60) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

In "ishshah's" desire to be 'wise' she believed a lie that she would not die.

I'm unclear at this point if the issue is simply 'flesh'. Flesh/basar (beyt/shin/resh/502) from its root means to bear news, bear tidings, publish, preach, show forth

1. (Piel)
1. to gladden with good news
2. to bear news
3. to announce (salvation) as good news, preach
2. (Hithpael) to receive good news

[sylvius]

In the beginning - the issue was 'don't eat, don't touch/strike' because you will die.. Here it appears 'the sting of death was sin'.

this already is kind of deception.

God had said, Genesis 2:17,

But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

He didn't say nothing about touching!

Yet the woman told the snake, Genesis 3:3,

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"

giving him the opportunity, v.4:

And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die.

Rashi: http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, 'Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating' (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

Now the question is: how she came to the conviction that also touching the tree was forbidden?

Jewish tradition says: Adam told her.

(the command was given to Adam even before the woman was made,
Genesis 2,

17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."

)

why did Adam tell her?

out of anxiety to lose her he builded a fence around the tree!
Anxiety for death.
saying: this is forbidden area for you, like kind of red zone district.



this must be also why Jesus was "eating with tax-collectors and sinners"

Mark 2:10,

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

Luke 7:39,

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner."

In the 1Timothy verse the woman was deceived

1Ti (54) 2:14 (70) says the woman was deceived..

Eph 5:6 (60) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

In "ishshah's" desire to be 'wise' she believed a lie that she would not die.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

wasn't Adam created with both good inclination and evil inclination?

expressed in the double "yud" with which "vayitzer" in Genesis 2:7 is written?

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

the one "yud" standing for "yetzer hatov" and the second "yud" standing for "yetzer hara"?

Yes, the Jews have a tradition that says we are created with a "good inclination" (yetzer hatov) and an "evil inclination" (yetzer hara). Here is a description from hebrew4christians.com (which btw is an excellent source to learn the Hebrew letters, including their symbolic meanings):

The yetzer hara represents the inner impulse or tendency within the human heart to gravitate toward selfish gratification (the word yetzer first appears in Genesis 6:5 where the wickedness of man is described as “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”). The yetzer hatov, on the other hand, represents the inner impulse to do good.

Now the question is - does the Bible teach that we were created with two competing wills - one for good and one for bad - or is that teaching only found in the Jewish tradition?

Now if the Bible does teach it, how does it relate to the traditional Christian teaching about the "sin nature" which was acquired after the fall, not built in at creation?

Furthermore, we need to ask: Does the Bible teach that we were originally created as "divided souls"? I don't think so. Did God create us as "double minded" creatures with two competing wills. or as a unity, in the image of God? This also makes me think of James 1:7 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Did God create us to be "unstable"?

RAM

[TheForgiven]

Joe,....this is another example of a phrase that cannot be supported by scripture. What is the "sinful nature"? Is the human nature sinful? What verse supports this?

We are inclined to use phrases which cannot be directly supported by chapter, and verse. Why do we continue to use them?

Be specific, Joe. Where do you find such a statement?

Joel

Is the "Sinful Nature" a term used to define the flesh? Or is it as it says; a nature that follows the path of sinning? Notice the text:

Romans 7:5
5 For when we were in the flesh (sinful nature), the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death

Galatians 5:17
For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Although Paul uses the Phrase to describe the sinful nature as the flesh, he is not speaking directly of flesh. He's referring to those who live according to the desires of the flesh. Thus, it is not flesh itself that is evil, but the bad habits we learn which developed into a sinning nature.

Is there an opposite of the sinful nature? Yes, there is:

2 Peter 1:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The Divine Nature is the Holy Spirit. Now brother Richard correctly points out that the battle is between flesh and spirit. Where I differ is that the Spirit is not trying to tell us to fight the flesh itself, but rather the temptations aroused by the flesh (as developed by bad habits) in order to train ourselves to live righteously and holy lives, never giving in to the desires of the flesh.

Now the Gnostics taught that all mass is evil and therefore worthless. If our flesh was worthless, then Jesus Himself would have been born into a world of sinful flesh. I do not believe the flesh itself is evil. Rather, the bad habits we learned in our youth caused our flesh to become sinful.

Here's the best way to explain it. You and I do not know what it's like to be a drug addict (at least I hope anyways). Only those who developed bad habits with drug abuse have a nature within themselves that must be killed. When someone seeks help, others are there to help them resist the temptation to give into their desires to use drugs. It is not their flesh itself that made them drug addicts. It was the habitual use of drugs that caused their flesh to adjust to it, hence, they get used to it, and desire it. Over time, when drug use has fully matured, they become addicted. Thus, the flesh learned a bad habit that has to be reversed.

The same with sinners. Sinners are sinners because that is all the know without God. The Divine Nature is God Himself, in the Holy Spirit, who abides in us to act as our Counselor, and our rehabilitation to free ourselves from drug abuse (sinning).

In conclusion, the sinful nature is not the flesh itself, but the habits learned while in the flesh. Paul clearly shows to the Romans that we as sinners lived according to the desires of the flesh afforded by the knowledge of the commandments. The commandments (law) created temptation in us who had problems with certain aspects of the Law. A person who habitually commits adultery has to learn to say no to his passion, and listen to what the Divine Nature is trying to tell you. The Divine Nature is our goal, which teaches us to break free from the abuses of the flesh.

Joe