We have endeavored on this website to explain many of the
hangups concerning the “doctrine” of sin nature, but one thing we have not yet
done is explained what is meant by sin nature, and how that definition is
logically understood. From that logical framework other doctrines in
Christianity invariably must be affected. Tim has often told me that once he
understood sin nature, and all of its side effects, the Bible opened up to him
in a way that he’d never thought possible. I must agree with him, because
indeed, my own personal Bible study profoundly changed once I understood the
issues surrounding sin nature. It seems every day something new is revealed to
me that I would have never realized, or would never have understood, if I
continued to hold to my former opinions. With that in mind, I have had five
separate conversations in the last 2 weeks about sin nature. Each discussion
was different, as they all came about their viewpoint from a different angle,
yet one issue was the same in all of the encounters, and indeed it is the same
issue in every possible sin nature debate – the cause of sin.
Bear with me as I endeavor to logically explain the doctrine
of sin nature, as is commonly offered in dialogue (Do understand, those who
hold to this, in my opinion, faulty doctrine, have no Biblical basis for their
belief. That being the case, they always resort to some form of logical
reasoning to prove their case). It never fails that every time I, or anyone
else, expose sin nature’s error’s Biblically, that the sin nature proponent
retreats into logic, and never offers scripture for their defense. Their arguments,
though the words may be different, essentially all follow the same pattern, and
is thusly stated –
SN (Sin Nature): We all sin, because we have a sin nature.
Me: So, we have no choice but to sin?
SN: No, sin is a choice that we all have.
Me: Then we do not have a sin nature, because sin nature by
definition means that we’re born to sin.
SN: Well, yes, because Adam sinned, we all sin.
Me: So, we’re guilty of Adam’s sin? Is that just? The Bible
says that every man is put to death because of his own sin (Ez. 18:20).
Usually, at this point, the sin nature proponent begins
creating straw man arguments.
SN: So you’re saying that we are sinlessly perfect?
Me: Why draw that conclusion?
SN: Because without a sin nature, we’d never sin, or mankind
is born perfect, and could live a perfect sinless life.
Me: Why?
SN: Because he’d have no cause for sin.
Now, at this point a vital issue has arisen. The cause of
sin. Biblically speaking the person convicted of sin always seeks a cause for
sin that does not make him guilty of his own sin. Reference Genesis 3 for
instance. God called upon Adam, and exposed his sin. Adam immediately shifted
blame to God for creating Eve. Eve, now under pressure, implicated the serpent
(Satan). Adam and Eve were both looking for someone to blame for their sin, or
in other words, excuse themselves from guilt and punishment for their actions.
God listened, and then he punished all three for their actions. Bottom line –
sin is an action.
Me: What is the definition of sin from the Bible?
SN: (usually) I do not know.
Me: According to I John 3:4 sin is a transgression of the
Law. That implies that sin is an action, not a nature or a substance.
SN: Yes, but why do we sin?
Me: James 1 tells us that we are drawn away of our own
lusts, and when lust hath conceived it bringeth for sin.
SN: See, where did the lust come from? Our sin nature.
Another pause for a moment. Lust is not sin. James 1 is not
calling lust sin. James is saying that lust can be the spark for sin. Much like
a firestarter is not fire, but it can start a fire. Let me explain further.
Mankind does have desires. God created them, and programed them into Man’s
nature. This may seem semantic, but it’s another vital issue. Man was indeed
created to eat, drink, sleep, procreate. Eating, Drinking, Sleeping, and Sex
are not sin, though each one of those actions can be sin. Here is how. When the
desire arises to have sex, mankind has a choice have non-sinning sex, which can
only be done in marriage, or have no sex. The desire is indeed natural, and is
not sinful, because it is a God given desire. Sex only become sin when man
choses to reject God’s boundaries for sex (marriage), and have it outside of
marriage. On that point I am not neglecting what Jesus Christ said about
lusting after a woman. One must take what Christ said in context, and the
context was adultery (sex outside of marriage). When He was talking about
looking with lust, the implication was lusting to have sex with that woman. It
is not a sin to hold the opinion that a woman is beautiful. It is a sin to want
to have sex with that woman because she is beautiful, however. In other words,
the temptation arises, and man has a choice. Think the woman is beautiful, and
don’t sin, or think the woman is beautiful and sin. In either situation, there
is a natural desire, but the natural desire is not sin until that desire is
used to transgress God’s Law.
Me: Who creates the baby in the womb?
SN: God.
Me: God does the creating, and God created man with certain
desires/passions?
SN: Yes, but because of Adam’s sin, we’ve all been
corrupted.
Me: So, God creates man in the womb with the corruption of
sin?
SN: You’re putting words into my mouth.
Me: No, this is the logical implication. If we’re born with
a sin nature (A Cause for sin), and only God can create the baby in the womb,
then it is God’s fault that we sin.
SN: It’s Adam’s fault, not God’s fault!
At this point, it must be understood that God is the
Creator, and there is much scripture about God doing the forming of the Baby in
the womb (consider Isaiah 44:2, Jeremiah 1:5, and Psalm 139:13-14). This is
indeed, rightly in the argument’s context, what the Atheist uses against those
who claim sin nature. They logically deduce God as being the creator of man,
and the sin nature of man, because God is the only Creator according to the
Christian. How does the Christian argue against the Atheist’s logic, if he
holds the sin nature doctrine?
Me: Because of Adam’s sin, God then cursed Adam and his
progeny by giving them a sin nature?
SN: Yes.
Me: Therefore, we sin, because Adam sinned, and God then
cursed mankind for Adam’s sin?
SN: Yes.
Me: Then it is indeed God’s fault according to your
position. Now, here’s my question, where in Genesis 3 did God specifically
outline that a punishment for Adam’s sin would be that his progeny would sin?
SN: So, you’re saying we could live a sinlessly perfect
life!?
The sin nature argument does not have an answer for this,
which is why they will always revert to straw-man or ad-hominem arguments. They
cannot give scripture, thankfully. Because if they could then the Atheist is
right in arguing that God created man to sin as a punishment for Adam’s sin.
This would be horrifically unjust, and God is not unjust.
Me: Again, I have never said that we would live a sinlessly
perfect life. What I am saying is that there is no cause for sin, other than
mankind choosing to sin. It is our fault, not Adam’s. Not God’s.
SN: But we sin, and the Bible says that sin came into the
world through Adam.
Me: Yes, Romans 5:12 does say that sin entered into the
world by Adam. He was the first man to sin, but he was not the first to sin,
Satan was (without flesh I might add, ultimately sin is a spiritual issue, not
a flesh issue). Yet, Romans 5:12 does not say that sin passed upon all
men. It says that death passed upon all men. That is part of the curse, and
that is outlined in Genesis 3.
SN: Yes, and we all die, because we all sin.
Me: That’s what the verse says.
SN: Later in the chapter it says that all men were made
sinners in Adam.
Me: No, the verse says that many were made sinners, many
does not all. If it indeed does say or mean all, then the second part of the
verse would have to mean that all were made righteous because of Christ. All
are not righteous, however. If we’re all made sinners in Adam, then we must
also all be made righteous by Christ. Yet, the verse says many choose sin, and
many choose Christ and are made righteous. Sin is a choice, just like salvation
is a choice. Either way, Romans 5 in total context is about death, notice how
many times “death” is mentioned from 12-21, and contrast that with “life” in
Christ. You can only have life when sin is overcome in/through Christ.
SN: So you’re saying sinless perfection?
Ok, now I can completely understand why this question arises
at this point now. Though, it’s still not the Bible’s point.
Me: Can you Biblically repent of a sin nature?
SN: No.
Me: Then no one could be saved, because repentance is
certainly concerned with Godly sorrow for your own willful sin. I can never be
guilty, or feel Godly sorrow, for Adam’s sin. I did not do it, he did. If I
have a sin nature because of him, and God creating me to sin, then I will never
feel guilty for sin, it’s not my fault, it’s someone else’s fault. Further, if
I “naturally” sin, because it is in my DNA, then I can never turn from that
innate/inherent sin.
SN: So, then you are saying that man is born sinless, and
can live a sinless life from birth to death?
Me: No, sin is a spiritual issue, and no man can stand
against Satan. According to II Cor. 4:4, Satan is the one doing the blinding of
man’s mind. He has many tools at his disposal to affect mankind, such as his
own fallen angel army, the world, and the flesh. Man’s flesh is indeed finite,
and very limited. It has those God-given desires, but Satan uses his tools to
effect sin in every man’s life. Christ called Satan the father of sin in John
8, and it is indeed Satan’s goal to make all mankind his children by tempting
them to sin. Neither you, nor I can stand against Satan for very long without
the power of Jesus Christ. But you cannot have the power of Jesus Christ until
you admit you’re a sinner, because you willfully sin. No excuses. Sin nature is
an excuse. It makes someone else guilty of sin, not you. You’re guilty, because
you choose to sin, but you do not have to sin. You choose to sin, not because
Adam sinned.
SN: So, you never sin again after Salvation?
Me: No, you still have Satan fighting against you, which is
why you are equipped with the armor mentioned in Ephesians 6. You are now
equipped with God’s power through Jesus Christ to fight Satan, and win. You
will no longer abide in sin, as you once did, and are on a new path through
Christ. But Satan won’t give up, and his power is great. All he needs is a
little opening in which to strike. When he finds that opening, usually when
we’re at our weakest, that is, when our natural God-given desires must be
fulfilled, then Satan attempts to strike. Those desires/lusts do have to be
answered, either to gratification according to God’s boundaries, or
gratification according to sin. The fact that the enemy can or does inflict
damage on you in no way takes you out of the army. You’re still a soldier of
Christ, and are never to be killed by sin spiritually, because of Christ’s shed
blood. But in the course of battle, you can suffer cuts, bruises, and broken
bones. You just won’t indulge in them to death as you once did. Let me phrase it this way, can you go without sinning for at least 2 seconds?
SN: Yes.
Me: Life is made up of two second choices. If you can avoid sin for 2 seconds, you can keep avoiding sin when the next 2 seconds arise. Do you think you could string enough two second periods together for 5 minutes?
SN: Yes.
Me: Now the point is that you can do that, willfully. But there is no one who has been able to string 70 years together of those 2 second time periods.
It should be pointed out that if sin nature is indeed a
Bible doctrine, and repentance is a Bible doctrine, then the Bible’s many
commands to turn from sin would indeed be implying for sinless perfection. I
have yet to receive a clear, coherent argument as to why this could not
logically be the case. Further, I find it interesting that line of logic that
tries to hold both positions to be true, that is, sin nature and repentance.
Perhaps someone can offer me an argument that satisfies my question? Regardless, the sin nature advocate has to deny being able to resist sin for even 2 seconds. He would have to say that all of his works, good or evil, are sin. This simply does not fit the rest of scripture, and I offer I John 3:22 as an example.
The dialogue I have offered is not far-fetched. In fact
everything stated therein has been spoken, or written, to me in the distant and
recent past. I am not putting words into anyone’s mouths, that would not help
anyone if I did. My point is to reveal logical outgrowths from the most
commonly used faulty logic when discussing sin nature. I pray that it is a
useful and God-glorifying tool to enlighten your hearts with His truth. Please,
feel free to ask any questions or add any comments. I wholeheartedly and
sincerely do not want to be wrong on this, as it most certainly has eternal
consequences.
Nota Bene: I understand that the dialogue is not exhaustive.
The essential points have, however, been covered. For more in depth questions
about specific passages or other issues, please visit our Sin Nature Links
page.
