Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Silence]

Hi Joel,
I have read a few commentaries that say Romans 5:12 should be translated "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which (death) all sinned -" This would seem to indicate that we sin because we are dead, not that we are dead as a result of sinning. In this veiw Adam sinned and brought death into the world, but from then on death reigned over him and his descendants, leaving them no option but to be sinners. 1 Cor.15:56 seems to follow a similar line of thought. "The sting of death is sin." If death were the result of sin, you would think that it would read "The sting of sin is death".

Romans 5:19 also seems to point to a "sin nature" or "sin problem" in mankind being something laid at one man's feet, Adam. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made (passive) sinners....". 5:6 also says "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

But at the same time there is James 1:15 that speaks of sin becoming full grown and then bringing forth death, implying that the reverse can also the case. I wonder if it could be that some scriptures are speaking of death as a process of a principle in action, and other scriptures speaking of death as the state of being without physical life which is the result of the forgoing process. Could this be why Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree, "dying you shall die"? Why did God give the leeway of one day as the time frame for the sentence to be carried out? Why not say, as soon as you eat from the tree you will die?

In reference to your opening question about whether Adam and Eve "lost" something in the fall that resulted in their children being considered short of the mark (sinners) as a result of that loss, or whether they "acquired" something that was passed on to their descendants that results in the same thing, I don't know. When sin entered something else left. (sinlessness)

It is interesting how the first mention in scripture of an emotional state relative to humans is a negative statement. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed". The absence of something is noted, not the presence of something.

Also interesting is how the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience are described. The first thing is that their eyes are opened. But instead of saying they knew good and evil like the nachash had told Eve they would, it says when their eyes were opened all they knew was that they were naked. They then made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. (We had a fig tree in our back yard at my parent's house and I can tell you fig leaves are covered with tiny fibers that are very irritating to skin. Makes you wonder why they chose them as a clothing material.) They could no longer bear to be in the presence of the Lord when He came near and hid from Him. Once the Lord had questioned Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and pronounced the judgement of each Genesis 3:21 says the Lord made tunics of skin and clothed them. It doesn't say what had happened to the fig leaves, whether the Lord removed them, Adam and/or Eve did it, or whether the coats of skins went on over the top of the fig leaves. It also doesn't say how the Lord appeared to them when He clothed them. They had hid from Him in fear before, maybe they had to face their fear. That is one of the things about the bible sometimes. There is a lot that is not spelled out. I guess there is a good reason for that though.

[joel]

Hi Joel,
I have read a few commentaries that say Romans 5:12 should be translated "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which (death) all sinned -" This would seem to indicate that we sin because we are dead, not that we are dead as a result of sinning. In this veiw Adam sinned and brought death into the world, but from then on death reigned over him and his descendants, leaving them no option but to be sinners. 1 Cor.15:56 seems to follow a similar line of thought. "The sting of death is sin." If death were the result of sin, you would think that it would read "The sting of sin is death".

Romans 5:19 also seems to point to a "sin nature" or "sin problem" in mankind being something laid at one man's feet, Adam. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made (passive) sinners....". 5:6 also says "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

But at the same time there is James 1:15 that speaks of sin becoming full grown and then bringing forth death, implying that the reverse can also the case. I wonder if it could be that some scriptures are speaking of death as a process of a principle in action, and other scriptures speaking of death as the state of being without physical life which is the result of the forgoing process. Could this be why Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree, "dying you shall die"? Why did God give the leeway of one day as the time frame for the sentence to be carried out? Why not say, as soon as you eat from the tree you will die?

In reference to your opening question about whether Adam and Eve "lost" something in the fall that resulted in their children being considered short of the mark (sinners) as a result of that loss, or whether they "acquired" something that was passed on to their descendants that results in the same thing, I don't know. When sin entered something else left. (sinlessness)

It is interesting how the first mention in scripture of an emotional state relative to humans is a negative statement. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed". The absence of something is noted, not the presence of something.

Also interesting is how the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience are described. The first thing is that their eyes are opened. But instead of saying they knew good and evil like the nachash had told Eve they would, it says when their eyes were opened all they knew was that they were naked. They then made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. (We had a fig tree in our back yard at my parent's house and I can tell you fig leaves are covered with tiny fibers that are very irritating to skin. Makes you wonder why they chose them as a clothing material.) They could no longer bear to be in the presence of the Lord when He came near and hid from Him. Once the Lord had questioned Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and pronounced the judgement of each Genesis 3:21 says the Lord made tunics of skin and clothed them. It doesn't say what had happened to the fig leaves, whether the Lord removed them, Adam and/or Eve did it, or whether the coats of skins went on over the top of the fig leaves. It also doesn't say how the Lord appeared to them when He clothed them. They had hid from Him in fear before, maybe they had to face their fear. That is one of the things about the bible sometimes. There is a lot that is not spelled out. I guess there is a good reason for that though.

Silence.....your observations are very profound.

I would ask you to look at the word, disobedience, in Romans 5:19.

What does it say?

Does it have anything to do with "hearing right" vs. "hearing wrong"?

Is disobedience "acting wrong".....or.....first "hearing wrong"?

What do you think?

Joel

[Silence]

Hi Joel,
I noticed that the word "disobedience" in Romans 5:19 meant to "hear wrong" as I was writing my last post and studying different scripture verses that might have bearing on the subject. I was looking at the verse from the standpoint of "many being made sinners" and didn't take much time to think backwards from that point to the cause that Paul attributed that event to. Thanks for pointing it out, as it prompted me to ask a few questions and notice things that I have always read right over. Adam "heard wrong" and as a result "many were made sinners". The eating followed with all of it's consequences, but in this verse the primary focus of blame is traced to Adam listening to Eve over God.

In the biblical account Eve's "sales pitch" to Adam was left out, and it is probably better that way. I wonder if a "hearing problem" is what was passed on to Adam's descendants, that results in them being sinners? Of course "hearing" in this context is much wider in scope than the vibrating of an eardrum transferring vibrations to an anvil to the cochlea and so on. Faith comes by hearing and whatever is not of faith is sin. So maybe we are born unable to hear God, and were helpless to not sin, so God's Son humbled Himself far enough down to our level to get through to us in a way that we could hear?

[jce]

Well... after reading through this thread about the "Problem Nature", "Troublesome Nature", "Deficient Nature" "Short Coming Nature", or if you will... "Sinful Nature" of man I have come to the conclusion that, as creatures made in the Image of God we have been endowed with the capability of making some assessments of this experience. Of course, without the Word & the Spirit, we are left pretty much in darkness on this topic.

So, in light of the Scriptures, when I look for a reason as to why my young grandchildren (11 so far) are prone to committing acts of evil (even after they have been warned) and some even before they understand what they are doing, I must conclude in light of the bible that they are "under the curse". My grandchildren range in age from 3 weeks to 15 years.

Now, from what I have witnessed, I would never leave the 3 week old alone with the 2 year old. He would do away with her .

I don't believe he knows what murder is (on the other hand, if he does, his condition is even worse than I thought), but he would be relentlessly cruel to her. I assume this would be out of envy since the newborn is getting most of the attention he recently received... but is now directed to his little sister. He may think in his deceitful and desperately wicked little heart that this would restore what has been taken from him. Whatever his motive, it not only appears to be unlearned behavior, but also beyond his ability to correct.

Our family jokingly refers to this inherent behavior issue as evidence of "The Sin Nature". Now, whatever you want to call it, there is a problem in that little mind (and the mature mind for that matter) and it is beyond human repair apart from regeneration.

John

[joel]

Dear John,

I have found no evidence that there is a "sin nature". It seems to be another fabrication of man who is trying to understand God and His revelation concerning man and his condition.

Our nature, as humans, is human. It is not "sinful".

We should discard those expressions that do not accord with scripture. And, embrace those which do accord with what He says.

Do you have a scripture which speaks of a "sinful nature"?

Joel

[jce]

I have found no evidence that there is a "sin nature". It seems to be another fabrication of man who is trying to understand God and His revelation concerning man and his condition.

Hi Joel. Thank-you for your response.

Agreed that man's words are not God's Word. However, we do fabricate (or create) terms which build a vocabulary to describe how things appear to us. Someone earlier in this thread used the term "Trinity" as an example of a word not found in scripture but a term fabricated by man in an effort to describe an attribute of God which man doesn't understand.

My observations of children (and some grown men) indicate that they have a problem in their character (being) from birth. Something that cannot be fixed but must be replaced ("Except a man be born again"). The old man? Whatever it is, it sins. So, if it is human in nature, and that human sins, does it not make sense to say "The nature of that human is to sin"? Is there another expression which better describes the condition? "Sinful human" perhaps?

In answer to your question, I have listed a few scriptures below which simply references the old man. Perhaps you could render a comment on each. I'm here, open to learn... and make some effort to contribute to the dialogue.

Our nature, as humans, is human. It is not "sinful". Do you have a scripture which speaks of a "sinful nature"?

2nd Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Thanks again Joel!

John

[joel]

2nd Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Thanks again Joel!

My blessing to discuss this with you;
--------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 5:16-17 (Young's Literal Translation)

16So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more;

17so that if any one [is] in Christ -- [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.

I'm not trying to be picky, as if demanding that we must all talk alike, but, I encourage you to use expressions that are as close to the original words that English will allow.

Rather than referring to our "nature", if we use this section of scripture to describe our new "condition", we are part of the new humanity (kainos athropos). Paul differentiates between "the flesh" of which we are all a part, and knowing others no longer from that perspective........and, actually looking at all things from the new perspective, or paradigm.

Paul describes this new view in Romans 8.....he refers to it as "phronema pneuma"....or mindset of the spirit. He contrasts this with "phronema sarx" which is a mindset of the old humanity....looking at things through the flesh which is of the old humanity.
-------------------------------------
And your next verses;

4we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.

5For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again;

6this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;

Paul describes how the total change (katallage, Romans 5:12) came about.

There is a three-fold set of "unity", i.e...."together" words employed describing what happened to the "old humanity";
1.) buried together;
2.) planted together;
3.) crucifed together with Him.

Here, the body comes into view. Our bodies, as originating from the old, are the "bodies of sin". Sin has dominion over the "old man".

But, thanks be unto God, Jesus took the "old man" to the cross.....and upon death, the "old man" was prepared for burial with Him as He was prepared,.....and, placed within the tomb as a seed is placed within the soil of the earth.

From that perspective, our "old humanity" received the finality of the words of God to Adam in the garden.......dust returning to dust.

So that.....we could be born anew.

Sin's dominion over the "old" ends at the cross.
---------------------------------------
Here, Paul focuses on the "where" this revelation of the gospel is to first bear fruit.....in the mind of us;

Ephesians 4:22-24 (Young's Literal Translation)

22ye are to put off concerning the former behaviour the old man, that is corrupt according to the desires of the deceit,

23and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

24and to put on the new man, which, according to God, was created in righteousness and kindness of the truth.

The "old man" lives in a realm of lies and deceit. He is corrupt, and corrupts all he touches. His behavior is a reproach to God, and if he does not have developed within him the "phronema pneuma", he will demonstrate that he still has within him the "phronma sarx" and he cannot please God no matter how religious he may appear on the outside. It is the inside that now matters.

The spirit of God renews the the spirit within us which renews the mind.

Righteousness and truth (as opposed to unrighteousness and lies) are the behavior that describes the "new man". We are to "take off" the former humanity, and "put on" the "now.....new man".
-------------------------------------
And now, Christ Who is in us, is He Who lives His life in us and through us;

Colossians 3:9-11 (Young's Literal Translation)

9Lie not one to another, having put off the old man with his practices,

10and having put on the new, which is renewed in regard to knowledge, after the image of Him who did create him;

11where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman -- but the all and in all -- Christ.
----------------------------------------

This is an "undescribable" gift of God.

He, Christ Jesus, our Master, is the fullness of God, and we are to be the fullness of God in Him.

He does only those things which please the Father. Therefore, as Christ in us by His Spirit, renews and refreshes us within, our behavior will conform to His will....and thus, the Father will be pleased with us as well.

Joel

[alec cotton]

You all have me beaten. Adam could not have a 'sin nature' Neither he nor Eve could sin. They did not know good from evil . They were unaware that good and evil existed. They did not have a conscience. A conscience is the awareness of right and wrong. Fruit , in the Bible invariably means
result, outcome or consequence . Now the result of acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a conscience. As soon as they got one they were exposed. They felt shame for the first time Now the question arises :What is sin? What is right ?. What is wrong?. Without the law there is no sin . I had not known sin except by the law. Sin must be disobedience . Breaking the law. Transgressing the commandment. I suppose that will open another can of worms.
Alec

[joel]

You all have me beaten. Adam could not have a 'sin nature' Neither he nor Eve could sin. They did not know good from evil . They were unaware that good and evil existed. They did not have a conscience. A conscience is the awareness of right and wrong. Fruit , in the Bible invariably means
result, outcome or consequence . Now the result of acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a conscience. As soon as they got one they were exposed. They felt shame for the first time Now the question arises :What is sin? What is right ?. What is wrong?. Without the law there is no sin . I had not known sin except by the law. Sin must be disobedience . Breaking the law. Transgressing the commandment. I suppose that will open another can of worms.
Alec

Let us set aside for the time being the term, "sin nature".

What he (Adam) had was a conscience. And, he had the law written in his heart. Not only was the commandment....."thou shall not eat"...provided to him verbally by God, but, he, as well as all humans, have the law written in the heart.

This inner law.....witnesses with the thoughts......and the conscience acts as a decision maker which leads to an action that is reached..........this is "good"...or,......this is "evil".

This is true of all humans as expressed by Paul in Romans 2:15.

We, as believers, have an advantage as we have the Spirit of God in us.......which bears witness with our spirits........we have an additional witness within us....the Spirit of God residing within. This is what Adam did not have.....but....we now have within us.

The shame came when they (Adam and Eve) acted upon what the flesh said, and not the spirit.......they did not remain under the command of God, but, came out from under it......and acted upon their fleshly inclinations.....as opposed to what the spirit would say......we........however,.......are in a completely different realm. We have our consciences. We have the law written in our hearts......but.....we also have the Spirit of God residing within us to bear witness to the truth.

Sin is "missing". They missed.......

And in missing......sin entered into the kosmos.....and death through sin.

Christ.....by the sacrifice of Himself.......un-places the sin. That is what He is currently doing in the kosmos.

Joel

[jce]

[B]

Let us set aside for the time being the term, "sin nature".

What he (Adam) had was a conscience. And, he had the law written in his heart. Not only was the commandment....."thou shall not eat"...provided to him verbally by God, but, he, as well as all humans, have the law written in the heart.

Joel

Hi Joel

Is your quote based on Romans 2? If so, how do you reconcile that with the Jeremiah 31: 31-33 prophecy as quoted in Hebrews 8 & 10?

Hebrews 8 KJV

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

I can find no reference stating that God wrote His Law in the heart of Adam. That does not imply that he didn't, just no affirmative support for it other than assuming that Romans 2 covers it, which begs the question... Are you certain that Romans 2 applies to Adam? If so, how?

It does seem safe to assume that God created Adam with a conscience and that his act of disobedience simply awakened it, however, I find no scripture to support this either, only an assumption.

I am unable to resolve the apparent dilemma between Romans & Hebrews. Perhaps you could shed some light on it for us.

Thanks Joel. It is good to work together with you!

John

PS: I forgot to say "Thank-you" for your very detailed explanation of my prior questions. I am satisfied.