Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Brother Bob]

Very good! This is exactly what I have been hoping for. A clarification of definitions so we know what we are talking about.

Now you said that "God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual being'". Can you support that with Scripture? It sounds suspicious to me for two reasons. First because the Bible says "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Cor 15:45). So Scripture speaks of Adam as "natural" (psuchikos) vs. Christ as spiritual. Second, it seems obvious that God's Spirit did not "fill" Adams' spirit, since otherwise Adam could not have committed the first sin.

I believe Adam and Eve were made in God's Image and were created perfect. This is evidenced by their perfect communion with God and not knowing they were naked. When they sinned, they ran from God and their eyes were opened signifying that a change had taken place 'within' them of some kind.

I'll have to take a closer look at 1Cor. 15:45, but I think you are reaching to conclude that Adam was not filled because he sinned. Sinless beings CAN sin and did. See Lucifer and the angels.

You also said "Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed." I don't see that as a change in "nature." Its a change in functional relationships. If that's all people meant when they said that we "inherited Adam's sin nature" they never would have invented ideas about transmission through the paternal line, a change in cell structure, etc.

Your statment that "Its a change in functional relationships" seems esoteric to me. I don't know what that means.

I still don't see any place for the idea that Adam acquired a "sin nature" when he first sinned. Have you noticed that he sinned before he ate the fruit? We know that because he had to intend to eat it before he actually did eat it, and the intention to sin is itself a sin. So how did Adam sin without a "sin nature"? The answer is simple, he was NOT in communion with God at the time, and the nature of the flesh not subject to a spirit in communion with God is to satisfy its own desires, hence sin.

That's the whole explanation of the whole existentiallada (to borrow a neologism from the One Cosmos guy) with not a single reference to, or even hint or suggestion of, a "changed nature."

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Yes, when Adam and Eve decided to sin they decided not to trust God. Eating the fruit was just the result of failing to trust their Creator. That is what happened to the angels. When a being (whether sinless or not) decides not to trust God they grieve the Spirit.

So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature.

BB

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Bob!

Great to see you found some time for a visit. Sorry to hear that you had a funeral to visit. I guess it only goes to prove the seriousness of the topic of this conversation.

I believe Adam and Eve were made in God's Image and were created perfect. This is evidenced by their perfect communion with God and not knowing they were naked. When they sinned, they ran from God and their eyes were opened signifying that a change had taken place 'within' them of some kind.

I never suggested anything about Adam and Eve not being created perfect. I think there has been a persistent misunderstanding on this point. As far as I know, I have consistently stated that they were indeed created perfect fleshly creatures. The change that happened is that the relationship with God was broken when they sinned. I don't see any reason to imagine that their "nature" changed when they sinned.

I'll have to take a closer look at 1Cor. 15:45, but I think you are reaching to conclude that Adam was not filled because he sinned. Sinless beings CAN sin and did. See Lucifer and the angels.

This seems to be the same persistent misunderstanding. I thought I was clear that Adam and Eve were created sinless. My point was that in order for them to sin, they could not be in conscious communion with God, and empowered by God's Spirit at the moment they chose to sin. That is because sin is a work of the flesh, not a fruit of the Spirit.

It's all Flesh vs. Spirit (Galatians 5:22ff)

You also said "Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed." I don't see that as a change in "nature." Its a change in functional relationships. If that's all people meant when they said that we "inherited Adam's sin nature" they never would have invented ideas about transmission through the paternal line, a change in cell structure, etc.

Your statment that "Its a change in functional relationships" seems esoteric to me. I don't know what that means.

The phrase "change in functional relationship" was certainly not intended as anything esoteric. I thought I was just rewording your idea that there was a change in the relationship between soul, body, and spirit. You asserted that the change in relationship between those parts should be understood as a change in "nature." I was just trying to say that the "nature" remained the same. It was the way the parts related that changed. For example, suppose one day I am tempted by lust, but I resist and pray and am victorious or the sin. Then another day I give in to lust and sin. Does my "nature" change day by day depending on whether I sin or not?

So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature.

BB

Ha! Now I'm gonna have to really prove you wrong! But a proper mistreatment of your question deserves a post of its own, so I'll get back to you with it asap.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature.

BB

Haha .... you asked for it Brother Bob. So here it is. In Post 23 I briefly explained what I think the Bible means by "flesh":

As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there.

You found this less than satisfying:

Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".

Actually, I don't think my initial "off-the-cuff" definition was really that inadequate. Lets compare it with Thayer's detailed definition:

G4561 sarx {sarx}
probably from the base of 4563; TDNT - 7:98,1000; n f
AV - flesh 147, carnal 2, carnally minded + 5427 1, fleshly 1; 151

1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body

2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation

2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

It seems to me that everything Thayer wrote is subsumed (more or less) under the two categories I initially offered. The only thing I left out were the details. But we don't need to argue this point since I agree with Thayer's definition, which answers your question, and should be sufficient for our discussion.

But given your obvious displeasure with my initial definition, I suspect that you will find Thayer's inadequate also. So now the ball has bounced back into your court, my friend. Could you please define what you think "flesh" means in the Bible? And if possible, could you cite an authoritative dictionary?

Thanks!

Richard

[Rose]

Hope you guys don't mind my jumping in and adding a very simple way of looking at the fall...at least for me

The clearest way for me to think about what happened to us because of Adam's fall, is to imagine that Adam and Eve, lived in a house "the garden" that contained everything they needed to live, plus a direct phone line to God, to talk with Him whenever they chose to, called "communion".

When they gave in to Satan's temptation and God kicked them out of the house "the garden" the door was locked and the phone line to God was no longer assessable. Now their eves were opened to the whole world outside the house.

They still had the same fleshly bodies without the protection of the house, and God's preserving life force, so their bodies began to age and die, as they were exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden".

My main point is that when Adam and Eve were banned from the garden they still had the same fleshly bodies that God created for them in the garden, but they no longer had the spiritual communion with God, to keep them spiritually healthy.

Sort of like a battery operated device, that gets unplugged from the source of current to keep it charged, it eventually runs down and dies. The device "flesh" doesn't change, the lack of a power source is what changes.

It might seem to simplistic, but it works for me.

Rose

[shalag]

Hope you guys don't mind my jumping in and adding a very simple way of looking at the fall...at least for me

The clearest way for me to think about what happened to us because of Adam's fall, is to imagine that Adam and Eve, lived in a house "the garden" that contained everything they needed to live, plus a direct phone line to God, to talk with Him whenever they chose to, called "communion".

It might seem to simplistic, but it works for me.

Rose

I'm thinking about what you said in relation to 'church' - "the called out'. And what are we called out of? The way the world thinks! Why? To return to the Word of God - totally. Jesus said, "take this bread' -lechem - L learn Ch consummate (pregnant) life M the wisdom of the Word of God - and when you do, think of ME, Jesus. Until we do that as our 'own' daily life - we have no 'communion' - we are still outside the garden - G riches N(of the) kingdom.

I say this in regard to 'rapture' also. We all would like to be 'raptured' - when He comes back. What about now. To be enraptured with Jesus is to be totally passionate and in communion with Him now. Speak only his Word - now. Refute all other wisdom with the word of God- now.

When they gave in to Satan's temptation and God kicked them out of the house "the garden" the door was locked and the phone line to God was no longer assessable. Now their eves were opened to the whole world outside the house.

They still had the same fleshly bodies without the protection of the house, and God's preserving life force, so their bodies began to age and die, as they were exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden".

My main point is that when Adam and Eve were banned from the garden they still had the same fleshly bodies that God created for them in the garden, but they no longer had the spiritual communion with God, to keep them spiritually healthy.

Sort of like a battery operated device, that gets unplugged from the source of current to keep it charged, it eventually runs down and dies. The device "flesh" doesn't change, the lack of a power source is what changes.

This really 'opens my eyes' to why we as church are succumbing to physical attacks. When we are unplugged from the Word of God - we are outside the house, out of communion - unplugged from the source of current to keep us physically and spiritually healthy - so our bodies begin to age and die, as we are exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden". God is no respecter of persons - he chooses them who truly choose him - without doubt. I don't know about anyone else - but as for me - I am fighting a battle to overcome all doubt. And I'm not talking about 'name it claim it' - I'm taking about trusting Him with my life no matter what.

Moses lived to 120 - and was healthy. He died yes - only because God took him - not because He was weak and unhealthy.

Thank you Rose - this is very edifying that the Word of God is living and powerful, full of mercy and compassion.

Don't mean to deviate from the 'theme' - -but I liked what you said!

[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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

Hey ho bro Joe,

We should probably move this discussion over to the sin nature thread if we want to pursue it, but for now we can continue here (though it is rather off-topic).

Where did you get the idea that "sin nature" = "the bad habits learned while in the flesh?" Is this your own analysis, or did you learn it somewhere? The reason I ask is because it is quite distinct from the traditional definition of "sin nature" as used throughout the history of this discussion, which goes back at least to Augustine (5th century).

Are you aware of the origin of this concept? Folks believed that we inherit our "sin nature" from Adam through the process of procreation. Some believe our DNA was corrupted so that our actual physical "nature" was corrupted. A bad habit can be broken, but a leopard can not change its spots. That's the difference between "sin nature" and "bad habits."

I would be very interested in digging into this in the other thread if you so desire. I find this particular doctrine quite intriguing because it is so far removed from what the Bible actually teaches and yet is believed by the vast majority of Christians.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hey ho bro Joe,

We should probably move this discussion over to the sin nature thread if we want to pursue it, but for now we can continue here (though it is rather off-topic).

I agree. Let's move this discussion to another thread. I've never actually debated this before. So this will be a first time for me.

Where did you get the idea that "sin nature" = "the bad habits learned while in the flesh?" Is this your own analysis, or did you learn it somewhere? The reason I ask is because it is quite distinct from the traditional definition of "sin nature" as used throughout the history of this discussion, which goes back at least to Augustine (5th century).

I suppose you could say it was something I learned on my own as I don't recall this ever being taught. Many years ago, I discussed this topic during one of our Wed. Night Bible studies. Some agreed with me, and others did not, but it never became an issue. The phrase, "Bad Habits" was something I used to explain the sinful nature in our own language. Paul's language was "sinful nature", as the NIV Bible puts it, while other bibles simply read "flesh".

If someone grows angry, is it their body causing the anger, or the habit of losing one’s control that results in anger? If anger can be controlled, then this is proof that the body is not the cause of anger, but rather a means for angers reaction. Drug addiction is another example. The body isn't born addicted to drugs; it's taught drug addiction through substance abuse. What about Lusting? Is it the body that causes lust? Or the habit that is formed from having too much intercourse? If somenoe is accustomed to practicing sinful habits (lusting, lying, eating too much, anger, lack of self control), then it becomes habitual in their daily lives. Jesus came to reverse that, and teach us the Divine life style which we all call holy living.

You'll find that nearly every sin is caused by poor habits we've learned from our youth, be it friends, television, etc. The primary objective of Christ is to train us into living Holy lives. That's why Paul explains that physical fitness is a good thing, but practicing righteousness is much more better. Practice, practice, practice! That's the only way.

Now one cannot practice holiness if he doesn't know what holiness is. This would be compariable to a person sitting in a dark room; the darkness blinds him from seeing what's inside the room. But turn on the lights and everything is exposed. This is the same with sinners who are born again into righteousness, through the grace of Christ Jesus. His Spirit (Light) fills our house (body) and exposes all the falsehood we've grown accustomed to.

I remember doing things as a child that I never would have thought to be wrong. Join a Church, be born again, and before you know it, you realize that all the while, nothing good resided inside your life. Only through God's word and His Spirit abiding in our hearts can we truly understand adultery, lust, love for your neighbor as yourself, and putting the Lord as your #1 priority in our daily lives. An unborn person will never understand these truths; he can't because his room is dark, and his eyes are blinded. That's where we come in....we preach with our lives, and not just our words. But I wonder these days just how shiny our lives really are.

Are you aware of the origin of this concept? Folks believed that we inherit our "sin nature" from Adam through the process of procreation. Some believe our DNA was corrupted so that our actual physical "nature" was corrupted. A bad habit can be broken, but a leopard can not change its spots. That's the difference between "sin nature" and "bad habits."

I for one do not believe that sin is passed down genetically. Hence your statement, "a bad habit can be broken, but a leopard cannot change its spots" is a very good analogy. I don't believe our sins represent the spots on the leopard.

I would be very interested in digging into this in the other thread if you so desire. I find this particular doctrine quite intriguing because it is so far removed from what the Bible actually teaches and yet is believed by the vast majority of Christians.

Richard

Sure, let's do that. Let me know when you've moved this discussion.

God bless.

Joe

[Silence]

Hello Richard and Joe,
I don't get time to visit much anymore but thought I would comment on this thread a little. There are so many ways to define some of the terms being used that it gets a little tiring trying to figure out which definition is meant by one person in a post, and how the next person responding uses the same word. An example is the word "sin". Many times it is used in reference to actions or thoughts. But sin can also be used to describe a state of being. The basic definition of sin in both Hebrew and Greek is to "miss the mark" on a target. In that sense, we are all born sinners. Jesus was in unbroken fellowship and harmony with His Father. His nature was to have His Father first in everything. Our nature is to put ourselves first. I wonder if Jesus came out of Mary kicking and screaming like most babies do? Did He cry to be nursed? I doubt it. When you are in fellowship with God you tend to be distracted from what is happening with yourself.

The question of this thread seems to be - Did something happen to Adam and Eve that caused their children to have a "sinful nature" and was this nature passed on to their offspring through "the flesh"? The bible doesn't spell it out for us in so many words. Since humans are incredibly complex beings, and the bible talks of spirit, soul, and body in reference to us, I don't know if we can lay the blame squarely on the "flesh" as being the source of the problem. But just because Adam and Eve had bodies of flesh before they fell, I don't think we can rule out the physical body as one avenue for their children to be affected. It's funny that I just read an article a few days ago about "epi-genetics" that might have some bearing here. It turns out that the decisions that a person makes about what to put in their body (food, drugs, etc.) can affect the way their reproductive cells activate or de-activate sections of DNA, and this can affect their offspring for several generations by causing certain genes to be switched "on" or "off". Could that have any reference to "visiting the iniquity of the father's on the children to the third and fourth generation..."? I don't know. But given the huge number of "epigenetic switches" they haven't identified yet and the number of things that can "flip the switch" (everything from how much you eat, to how much affection you recieve, to chemicals that can interfere, one of which is glycol, a very common component listed on food labels) I don't know how we can rule out the physical body as an integral part of a "sin nature".

A long time ago I read an article on the way our brains work and it described how our brains take note of things that make us feel good and kind of "work backwards" from the release of the feel-good hormones, going backwards along the neueral pathway for a certain length to create a predisposition to do the same thing in the future. Sounds kind of like what Paul was talking about when he said the evil that he willed not to do, that he found himself doing. He also spoke in Romans 7:23 of the "law of sin which is in my members". Then in 7:24, "this body of death" and in v. 25 he talks of serving the law of sin with his flesh.

I think maybe the one thing that trumps everything else is the Holy Spirit. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty". Conversely, where the Spirit of the Lord is not, there is not liberty. Liberty from what? According to 2 Cor 3:7 it appears to be death that the Holy Spirit frees us from. Adam and Eve could not pass on to their children something that they did not have. They could only pass on what they did have. And at this point I am also reminded of a kind of "flip side" to this fact that was brought up earlier - If Adam and Eve fell and their bodies or "flesh" was the vehicle for passing that fall to their children, then in addition to not being able to pass anything good on to their children, how could Eve avoid passing that sinful taint to the "Promised Seed" in the same way, since her body was infected with sin? The answer is found in Genesis 2:22 when God "built" Eve. Women are born with all of the eggs they will ever have already formed within them. The "Seed" was already in Eve before she was tested and fell. And before there was an actual need for it, God provided a way for that Seed to be passed down to Eve's daughters undefiled, even though the daughters themselves were defiled by sin. The process is described by Arthur Custance in his book "The Seed of the Woman". Basically, when a woman's egg is fertilized by a female sperm (x), the part of that egg's dna that will form her future daughter's eggs remains seperate from the dna that will make up the rest of her daughter's body. That is how the Seed could come from a fallen woman and still be sinless and perfect as a sacrifice and Kinsmen-Redeemer. It is sanctified and set apart. If an egg is fertilized by a male sperm (y) then all of the dna in both the egg and sperm is mixed together. The male child's future reproductive contribution is not within him at birth. It is formed and put together by his body throughout his life from puberty to old age.

It could also be that, at the outset of a person's life, the flesh itself is not the root of the problem, but the mind in us that is set on the flesh is. But in what sense can our "minds" be separated from our "flesh"? What happens to the body affects the mind and vice-versa. Once Adam and Eve sinned "their eyes were opened" and all they knew was that they were naked. Subsequently to this they heard the Lord walking in the garden but had to hide from Him in shame. Did this trait of "open eyes" and hiding from God get passed down to their children? It seems to be the case.

So to make a long (and often confusing) story short, I do not see how Adam and Eve could have done anything other than pass on to their children a "sin nature", either in an active or a de-facto sense. They lost something in the fall that precluded them from having it to pass on to their children, hence all of their children "missed the mark" that would have been theirs if their parents hadn't fallen.

[joel]

They lost something in the fall that precluded them from having it to pass on to their children, hence all of their children "missed the mark" that would have been theirs if their parents hadn't fallen.

Could it be.......that initially they "acquired" something that they didn't have before which caused a change within them?

God had placed within the garden trees which we pleasant to the eyes and good for food. In the command to Adam which limited the grace of the freedom to eat of any tree.......He told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil......in dying he would die.

Adam began to die. The process of death was now a part of his inward being which affected his body.

It was the serpent's subtle question that suggested to Eve that God had withheld something from them, that when they did eat of the tree, they would be "like God"...knowing good and evil. That was a lie.

When they ate, profound changes occurred within them........so......I ask the question......are we now sinners because we sin....or......are we sinners because we are dying?

The dying process is what we have from Adam which prohibits our ability to hit the target (sin). Each of us are born dying. And, we call it "life".

Joel