Is a “sin nature” biblical?

[Guest]

I’ve been cogitating a little on some of the things that have been said in this thread:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=899

It has raised a few questions in my mind that I’d like to throw out there for consideration. I’d like to preface this with saying that I have not thought this through all the way yet.

So here’s my basic questions to discuss:

1) What is a “sin” nature (biblically)?
2) Where do we get the idea that this “nature” is a result of Adam and Eve’s sin and that everyone since has inherited it?
3) What is the true nature of the curse?

I’d also like to offer a couple of alternatives to this traditional viewpoint to consider as well.

“Sin nature” or just flesh?

Could what we call “sin nature” simply be our flesh?

In another thread, Steve7150 wrote:

This phrase "sinful nature" seems a little bit misleading because it seems to me the bible clearly teaches Jesus was born with the same nature as our's. I think "sinful nature" is an NIV phrase but the actual translation is "the flesh."

I would agree that this translation of the word sarx is a theological assumption on the part of the NIV translators. Everywhere the NIV says “sinful nature”, the literal translations render it “flesh”. If we just take the simple literal meaning of the word, we are left with flesh. This is something that not only we have, but Adam, Eve, and Jesus also had. It’s simply having a body with natural cravings and desires which the devil exploits to tempt us to sin. James says:

James 1:14-15
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
NKJV

Eve was tempted as Satan appealed to the desires of the flesh. John says:

1 John 2:15-16
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world.
NKJV

Eve was tempted in all 3 of these respects (Gen 3:6)

There is a certain degree of self-denial in avoiding sin.


Flesh, not “sin nature” inherited from Adam

Perhaps we sin, not out of a propensity to do so handed down to us from Adam (sin nature), but when we choose to obey our natural fleshly desires instead of obeying the commands of God.

I don’t see where it says that Adam had the ability not to sin and we don’t. Perhaps someone can correct me on that. What I see the bible saying is:

Isa 53:6
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
NKJV

And:

Ps 14:2-3
2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.
NKJV

This seems to place a personal responsibility on every person and leaves no room for blaming Adam and Eve for our bent toward sin.

Curse is death, not a new sin nature

Genesis says:

Gen 2:9
The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
NKJV

And:

Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

Adam and Eve were only forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This means that they were free to eat of the tree of life.

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t see where the bible says that Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies that could never die unless they sinned. God did say they would die in the day they sinned, but it doesn’t say how He meant that.

Jesus, although He was the only One in history to successfully experience temptation and avoid sin, was still initially subject to death (the wages of sin).

We know for sure that there is a spiritual death associated with sin, but how did the physical aspect come into the picture. Perhaps they were supposed to eat from the tree of life on a regular basis in order to live forever. A cursory reading of Genesis 3:22 would seem to refute that, but it’s worth considering the meaning of the words used to see if it could include a continual eating of the tree of life rather than a one time event.

Perhaps the curse of death is merely being cut off from access of the tree of life (Gen 3:24). Maybe Christ, through the victory of His perfect obedience to the will of the Father (even death on a cross), is the anti-dote for that curse by being Himself the new tree of life that we are to continually eat from, spiritually speaking (1John 5:11-12).

1 Cor 15:45
The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.


Like I said, I’m mostly thinking out loud here and I haven’t totally thought this through so I welcome anyone to please shoot this theory down. I hate bucking tradition….it always seems to get me in trouble.

[Guest]

Hi Christopher-- excellent points!

we all know that Adam and Eve "fell." i have always believed, and perhaps i have always been wrong, that adam and eve were the only two people who EVER had the possibility of NEVER sinning(apart from the Lord).

the bible doesnt say (althought again i could be wrong) how much time elapsed from the creation of eve until she succumbed to temptation. we know it was before they had children. was it the day after she was created? was it 10,000 years? i dont really know. i would like to think that there was a rather substantial period of time before they sinned, but this may only be wishful thinking on my part.

when adam and eve sinned, they were cursed ("by one man sin entered into the world")-- somehow this curse was inherited by their ancestors (us). how this works is a mystery. i personally believe that humans MUST sin. not that they must live in sin, or sin all the time, but that they must. scripture tells us this. 1 John is sort of jekyll and hyde-ish on the issue-- on the one had we are told that we must not sin and on the other hand we are told that whoever says he does not sin is a big fat liar (i added the big fat part).

to me, "sin nature" just means that sin comes naturally to us. we must struggle mightily to not sin. Romans 7 documents this epic struggle.

Whether sin "came naturally" to jesus is another matter. i tend to believe that it did not, but others (on the other thread) think that it did and he was able to resist it at every point. i truly have a very difficult time understanding this. obviously, Jesus was not like us because he never sinned. that is extraordinary; i would say it was miraculous. i would say he was able to do this because he was deity.

in regard to physical death and decay, it seems that this started when adam sinned-- they still lived an awful long time but as generations passed life spans shortened. its almost as if the laws of thermodynamics(entropy) kicked in at the time of the fall.

excuse my musings that may have missed your points. but this indeed an interesting topic.

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

Thanks for your response.

I've long believed that we don't have to sin, but everyone chooses to out of the weakness of their flesh. It just wouldn't make sense to me that God would hold us accountable for something that we have no choice over.

I tend to think that Adam and Eve were only a few hours old when they fell. Although, you're right, the bible doesn't seem to say for sure. But I don't think it can be 10,000 years since Adam only lived to be 930.

You wrote:

when adam and eve sinned, they were cursed ("by one man sin entered into the world")-- somehow this curse was inherited by their ancestors (us). how this works is a mystery.

I have considered this passage in Romans 5 that you're referring to, but it's not entirely clear to me what the passage actually means by that. Does it mean that Adam passed his new "sin nature" down to all his ancestors? Or does it mean that he was simply the first man to sin and because of that, his progeny (us) also suffer the consequences of that choice...death (i.e. no access to the tree of life)? I don't know.

I know that many people like to blame Adam and Eve for their own tendency to sin. I used to be one of them. But I just don't see the bible saying that. God seems to hold each person 100% responsible for their moral choices regardless of circumstance. If Adam and Eve passed a "sin nature" on to me that I would not otherwise have if they hadn't sinned, it seems logical to me that I could legitimately pass on at least some share of the blame to them for my sins. But that's not what the bible indicates. I'm totally accountable for my own sin.

I think you indicated in the other thread that you believed that Jesus did not have this sin nature and was therefore at an advantage over us in the area of avoiding sin. If this is true, than it seems hardly impressive that He didn't sin and the verse in Hebrews 4:15 becomes impotent as a point of encouragement for us. I think Jesus, being flesh and blood, had the same fleshly desires we have and therefore endured the same temptations we do. The difference being, He successfully governed those desires by being obedient to the Father (probably by means of His conscience) rather than the flesh.




Another thing I've been considering is this. Is physical death supposed to be a type of something much more serious....namely spiritual death? And does that take place instantly? Or does it begin a process of spiritual decay that leads to spiritual death? The bible seems to indicate in many places that our conscience is seared by sin and our heart is made progressively harder towards God through habitual sin until God finally turns people over to it in judgment (Rom 1 for example).

Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they committed their first sin. But lived many years before they actually died. I wonder if little children who begin sinning are not yet spiritually dead, but well on their way until God finally begins holding them accountable after years of hardening their own hearts through rebellion.

Just some more thoughts to consider.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

I know that many people like to blame Adam and Eve for their own tendency to sin. I used to be one of them. But I just don't see the bible saying that. God seems to hold each person 100% responsible for their moral choices regardless of circumstance. If Adam and Eve passed a "sin nature" on to me that I would not otherwise have if they hadn't sinned, it seems logical to me that I could legitimately pass on at least some share of the blame to them for my sins. But that's not what the bible indicates. I'm totally accountable for my own sin.


Hi Christopher, It seems Adam passed death to us, the question is physical or spiritual or both. "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world ,and death through sin, and so death spread to all mean,because all sinned." Romans 5.12
God said to Adam "in this day you will die" which i think meant he died spiritually which ultimately lead to physical death because he was kept from partaking in the tree of life. So i think it's this spiritual death that's passed on to man and unless we are made "alive in Christ" this spiritual death will lead to the physical death. It's this spiritual death that makes it incredibly difficult not to sin because we have instincts like self preservation built into us which unless harnessed will turn into selfishness.
Through Christ we get justified but through Adam we are condemned and this condemnation i think is spiritual death which is the so called sin nature. Paul did say "no man can say Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" meaning there is something lacking in our spirit. We can respond to Christ but to truly make him Lord we need what we don't have because of that spiritual death.

[Guest]

Wow...I am quite amazed how the temptation of Christ thread has expanded into a whole line of new questioning. A hearty thanks to Steve for giving us new things to think about and JF something to laugh at.

Here is my opinion on the subject. I do think there are two parts that occurred during the fall. The first was the spiritual death because God said, "...for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." This seems to imply an immediate death. Since that didn't happen the day they ate I would assume spiritual since we need Christ to restore that spiritual life. The second death was physical and came through the curse. I also believe man was meant to live forever by constantly eating from the tree of life. Here is a verse on the tree of life in Revelation 22:

2 in the middle of its street On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

It seems to me that if the tree has to keep producing fruit than it seems to be conveying a constant need to be eaten. However, this is in the book of Revelation, so this could all be just a metaphor for something else.

Also, notice that the tree of life wasn't destroyed. Maybe as a symbol that God was going to restore the physical immortality in the future. Which we now know is our new body that we are going to receive.

I'm still contemplating on the sin nature = flesh issue, so I have nothing on that yet. Again thanks Steve for the extra thoughts that helps me try to understand our Lord even more.

[Guest]

Steve,

How do you interpret Romans 8:3 -

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

It states "in the likeness of sinful flesh", as though Christ did not come in the same flesh as you and I. If he did than how do we explain he came in "sinful flesh"?

[Guest]

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Hi Micah, Paul did'nt say he came in sinful flesh only in the likeness of which i think means Christ came in the flesh and overcame the temptation to sin therefore His flesh was like our flesh in the physical sense but different then our's in the spiritual sense. That's why it was a likeness of our flesh verses like our flesh because Christ's flesh was sinless.

[Guest]

christopher wrote:

I tend to think that Adam and Eve were only a few hours old when they fell. Although, you're right, the bible doesn't seem to say for sure. But I don't think it can be 10,000 years since Adam only lived to be 930.

i shall now willingly accept the award for the dumbest comment ever made on this forum. duh!!

TK

[Guest]

christopher wrote:

I've long believed that we don't have to sin, but everyone chooses to out of the weakness of their flesh. It just wouldn't make sense to me that God would hold us accountable for something that we have no choice over.

when i previously stated that we "must" sin, of course i meant this in the sense that we WILL sin, not that we SHOULD sin.

christopher, technically you may be correct that we dont HAVE to sin. but from a practical standpoint, every person who has ever lived, apart from Jesus, has sinned. the Bible is clear about this. so it may be a matter of semantics to say that we dont HAVE to sin, when the reality is that we do. It's kind of like saying a little league baseball team wouldnt HAVE to lose to the NY yankees in a game, but as a practical matter, they will.

you brought up again the idea that Jesus had no special advantage over us that assisted him in his sinlessness, other than he was able to control his temptations through willpower and obedience to conscience. I may be able to accept this idea, but nobody has provided me with an answer as to HOW he was able to do it. we know He did it, but how? in another thread, i indicated that it would be unacceptable to answer this question by bringing up that he was the Son of God, the lack of a sin nature, etc because these would all give him a special advantage. So, if one argues that Jesus was just like us, i.e. subject to the exact temptations and equally susceptible to sin, etc, the question on the table is how in the world could he keep from sinning? Everyone else who is "just like me", meaning every other person on the planet now and in the past has sinned. so why didn't Jesus?

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

I think I agree with you that we all do sin. The bible does seem to emphatically suggest that in many places. I just wanted to remove the fatalistic portion of that statement, and I think we actually agree on that point judging from your last post.

On the other hand, even though the bible makes absolute statements like “there is none righteous, no not one”, it’s hard to know how much of that absolute sounding language is hyperbole. After all, the bible also suggests that certain men were righteous in the eyes of God. For example:


Ezek 14:19-20
19 "Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out My fury on it in blood, and cut off from it man and beast, 20 even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live," says the Lord GOD, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness."
NKJV


Gen 6:9
Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.
NKJV


Heb 11:4-5
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
NKJV

2 Peter 2:6-8
6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8(for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)
NKJV

And last but not least….

Job 1:8
8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
NKJV


God Himself said Job was “blameless” and “upright”. Was he using hyperbole or was Job without sin? I don’t know.

If we believe that the bible is the word of God, we obviously cannot allow for contradictions.

Now we do know that at least some of these men (especially Lot and probably Noah) were not righteous in the sense that they never sinned. However, the tension between the idea that “there is none righteous, no not one” and that certain men are expressly said to be righteous does underscore the fact that the hyperbole is used in the bible when speaking of righteousness. Whether the hyperbole is used to speak of righteousness of individuals or the universal depravity of man is not entirely clear to me. How far we should press the statements of universal depravity is hard to tell from my standpoint.

I will say this. I don't know anyone who is sinless and certainly not I.

I have not abandoned the traditional view of a "sin nature" inherited by Adam as of yet, not even close. I always default to the traditional view until I become absolutely convinced otherwise. Men much smarter than me have wrestled with these issues for centuries.

I just wanted to pose the question and a possible alternative view so that we could search out biblical evidence and see just how solid the traditional view is. I thought it would be much easier to do that given the brain power on this forum. As of yet though, it’s hard for me to determine how airtight a case there is for it.

Also, if Jesus didn’t have the same vulnerability to falling into temptation that we do, I don’t see how he can “sympathize with our weaknesses” (Heb 4:15). That leads me to question whether or not there is such a “sin nature” as a part of the curse of the fall, or maybe even that Jesus inherited the same “sin nature” that we have and overcame it (which would be exceedingly impressive IMO). I just don’t know. I hoping for more input (hint hint everybody ).

I appreciate your on-going contribution to this discussion and for bringing it up in the first place.

Lord bless bro.