The sinful nature doctrine was the invention of Augustine, not found in any of the early church fathers before his sycretistic inclusion of those neo-Platonic and Manichean pagan ideas.
The doctrine cannot be found in Scripture without wholesale corruption of the plain meaning of all those passages which are used to support it. Having dominated the doctrinal teaching of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, for so many centuries, there is hardly a Christian today who can read the Bible and understand it.
I do not have time to address the passage in Romans 7, which has nothing to do with a sinful nature, and only with the experience of one who has, "sold themselves into slavery to sin," (See John 8:34, Rom. 6:16) by choice.
Nor do I have time to address the great harm the sinful nature heresy does to the doctrines of the nature of sin itelf, the atonement, and salvation.
Since you mentioned the nature of Christ, another doctrine perverted by this heresy, I have addressed that issue directly by including part of a much earlier discussion I had about this question.
I have no intention of convincing you, only of demonstrating, I do not come by My opinions lightly.
|
Jesus' Nature
(From an early and agreeable online debate.) I contended that the Bible teaches that Jesus had exactly the same kind of nature that we have, which would mean, if we have a sinful nature, Jesus had a sinful nature, which flatly contradicts Bible teaching. My opponent made the following remark: "After all, if He is exactly like you and He lived without sin it would mean you too could live a sinless life had you chosen right?" The following is my response to that remark: I did not say He was exactly like you or me. I said his human nature was exactly like all other human nature, because that is exactly what the Bible teaches. Before I explain how this is true from the Scriptures, however, I want to say something about your contention that if our nature were exactly the same as Jesus' nature, it would mean we could live without sin. This, I believe is true. The Bible says, "all have sinned," but it does not say all are "made to sin," or, "caused to sin," (by their nature or anything else) because, in fact, if something "made" or "caused" someone to do anything, it would not be sin. The Bible always represents sin as something chosen, not caused or the result of something not chosen, like nature. Christians falsely assume, if human beings did not have a sinful nature, they would not sin, and, furthermore, that they could save themselves. There is no reason to believe that, and the evidence is all to the contrary. Neither Adam or Eve were not born with a sinful nature. They both sinned without benefit of it. Neither Adam or Eve could save themselves, even though they were not born with a sinful nature. They sinned for the same reason and in the same way that every human being sins, they chose to, freely, and that is why they were guilty of it. The point of Jesus having the very same kind of nature all human beings have and being tempted in exactly the same way all other human beings are is to prove the man could live without sin, but absolutely none will. Now for the Scriptural proof: Jesus All Man Jesus was all man and all God. Any other view is considered heresy. If His human nature, then, must be exactly the same as any other human being's nature. If it is not, he is not all man. Calvinists are very close to holding the heresy that says Jesus was not really a man. But the Bible makes it clear that as a man, he had exactly the same nature we have. Heb. 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Consider: "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood. "he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the seed of Abraham. Some Christians make much of the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin, and since he had no human father, did not "inherit" the sinful nature. But this produces the peculiar idea that, somehow, the sinful nature is genetically, "sex-linked," which is absurd on the face of it, but denied in any case by the Scripture that specifically states the nature of Jesus was inherited from the "seed of Abraham," a male. "in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's all things, including their nature, or it is not all things. If it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things. This is exactly what is taught throughout Scripture. For example: Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Now compare this to: Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have. (Added note: The expression, "sinful flesh," does not mean that flesh, itself, is sinful, in its nature. If it did, Paul could not have used "love of flesh" as a picture of a man's love for his wife, or Christ's love for the church in Eph. 5:28-29, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. The words "carnal" and "flesh" refer to the fact that sin is yielding to temptation that comes from the physical desires. They that yield to desires against what they know is right are "carnally minded." Rom 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" and, Rom. 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.") This is the whole point of Jesus temptation. If he was not tempted in exactly the same way we are, then it was a fake and meaningless. The point of His temptation was to demonstrate that we are guilty and have no excuse for sin, such as a sinful nature that makes us sin, or temptation being "too great" for us to resist which Scripture plainly denies: (1 Cor. 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.) Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Jas. 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It does not mean, as is commonly supposed, "sinful desire." It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer," and could have been correctly translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...." The word used by James and translated "lust" is the very same word translated as "desire" in Luke 22. With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desires like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin in themselves. It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus was tempted. The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, for knowledge, and for pleasure were all desires Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise without sin, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Was there anything "sinful" about the desires for the food, beauty and wisdom the fruit of the tree offered? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this: there was a perfectly natural desire for an object, there was the knowledge that particular object was forbidden, (and, therefore, that it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because, to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted. James explains that this is always how temptation works. Nothing has changed. All desires spring from our natural God-given desires. (We only here refer to the natural passions, not "intellectual" desire based on values and goals. In themselves, these can never alone be the source of temptation, that is, if there is no accompanying desire in the "feeling" sense.) When the object of those perfectly natural God-given desires are those things which one may rightly enjoy, fulfilling them is not sin, and is in fact their purpose. When the object of those same natural desires is for something forbidden, fulfilling the very same desire becomes sin. It is not the desire that makes it sin, but the object, and the fact that it is forbidden. (Sexual desire within marriage and outside of marriage is a typical example. The very same desire fulfilled within marriage is blessed, outside of marriage is sin.) It is necessary to make this clear if we are to understand that Jesus was tempted in every way exactly the same we are. If there is anything about our nature that makes temptation greater or different than it was before the fall, Jesus' nature must also have had this same difference, else he would not have been tempted, "in all points," and "like as we are." Since all desires spring from our natures, and all temptation is the result of desire, and Jesus was tempted in exactly the same way we are (or the whole thing is only a sham), He had to have the same kind of nature we have. Finally we must examine this verse: Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrassed to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here. This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature." On the basis of this view, every human death is, supposedly, proof of the sinful nature. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that, JESUS DIED. To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal. Final Remarks The original has the following remarks added: Adam and Eve, and all the angels were created sinless, and Adam and Eve, and probably 1/3 of the angels sinned without benefit of a sinful nature. After the fall, man became "physically" depraved, mortal, and subject to disease and easily inflamed desires in a world also under the curse. If man could not keep from sinning when in perfect health, in paradise, walking daily with God, why do you suppose he would be able to keep from sinning in the imperfect state he now finds himself in? Physical depravity is not sinful depravity. The animals also grow old and die, as even the world itself does, and we do not accuse them for it of having a sinful nature. Temptation is not sin. After the fall, temptation became much greater than before, and Jesus suffered that same temptation, proving that a man could resist it if he chose to. However, Jesus is the only man who ever did resist it, and the only one that ever will choose to do so, if the Bible is true. |
I do not blame any Christian for believing in the sinful nature, it is what they are taught by those they trust. I do blame the teachers.
Hank