Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2009 21:26:03 GMT -5
"What of sinful nature?"
First, you need to define nature. Our nature is our constitution. It includes our spirit, soul, and body. It also includes our mind, will, and emotions. It is our structure, our constitution.
Now, by "sinful nature" what exactly do you mean?
If you mean:
1. Some people mean that our nature is sinful in and of itself. In other words, our constitution has moral qualities independent of our will. Usually people mean our flesh. But our flesh is just dirt. God made us out of the dirt. Can there be such a thing as "sinful dirt". Can moral qualities be perscribed to physical matter? Moral states are states of the will. Moral qualities can only be prescribed to states of the will. You cannot have a sinful flesh anymore than you can have a sinful rock or a sinful leaf. Matter has no moral qualities in and of itself. The physical and the moral must be distinguished between. Morality always has to do with the moral law of God and the human will.
Men do not deserve the wrath of God because of the type of flesh that they involuntarily inherit at birth, nor because of the type of nature that God forms in the womb. Men deserve hell because of their own free choices to violate the moral law of God as it is revealed to their mind. Sinners are not victims (birth) but are criminals (choice). If our body or flesh was truly "sinful" at birth, than we would deserve hell for having it, we would be under God's wrath for having it, yet we haven't made any conscious choices yet! How can a moral being be justly under wrath or deserve punishment before ever making any conscious choices?
2. Some people mean that our nature forces us to sin. This is known as necessitarianism. These theologians advance a scheme where our nature determines the states of our will. But this is not and cannot be true. If it was true, we could never deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. We could never crucify our flesh or deny our passions. The truth is that our nature influences our choices but does not determine them. Both emotions and conscience are parts of our nature. Our emotions and feelings want gratification (which have their proper place) but ultimately we are to be governed by our conscience. Our will is free to obey our emotions or to obey our conscience. Neither our emotions necessitate our will nor does our conscience. The will is always free to choose between them.
3. Some people mean that our nature influences us to sin. This is not precisely true. Again, our nature is made up of many elements, two of which are sensibilities and intelligence. The "lusts of the flesh" and the "lusts of the mind" both belong to the sensibilities. Our conscience belongs to our intelligence. Our conscience tells us to obey God. Our conscience influences us not to sin. Since our conscience is an element of our nature, we could say that our nature influences us to obey God, our nature tells us not to sin. On the other hand, our body has passions and desires that want gratification. It is not "sin" that our bodies crave, it is gratification that our body desires, whether it be lawful or unlawful gratification. Your body doesn't care if you gratify it's sexual desire through marriage or fornication. It doesn't "crave sin", it craves gratification through whatever means, legal or illegal. Likewise you have an appetite for food. Your body doesn't care if you gratify this desire through stealing bread or purchasing bread. The "means" is irrelevent to your body. But the "end" that it craves is not sin, but gratification. Men sin, not for the sake of sinning, but because of the gratification that it brings. Sin is not an "end", sin is a means to an end, and that end is gratification.
4. Some people mean our habits when they talk about our sinful nature. This uses the word nature in a broader sense than our constitution. This relates to our moral nature. Our free choices developes habits. If a person continually sins, sinning becomes natural to them. It becomes their normal state, their usual conduct. In this way, men do have "sinful natures". Through their free will they have developed habits through which sinning has become normal and natural to them. We see this in Ephesians 2:3.
Consider the following:
1. The state of our nature or body at birth is not our fault because it is not our choice. Our choice or will has no role in determining what condition our nature or flesh will be in when we are born. Therefore we cannot be justly held accountable for the state of our nature at birth.
2. God is the one who forms us in the womb. The state of our nature or body at birth is determined by God. If our nature or body is "sinful" at birth, it is God's fault.
3. By saying that we are sinners "by birth" because of our nature, we are thereby eleviating ourselves from all blame and are actually blaming God for our sin. But in the Bible God continually holds sinners responsible for their sin. God is angry with sinners for their sin and punishes sinners. Therefore it must be their own fault, it must be their own choice.
4. Sin is transgression of God's law. God's law tells us what types of choices to make, not what type of flesh to have. Therefore only our choices can be sinful but our body cannot be.
5. Our conscience is an element of our nature and it tells us not to sin. We naturally feel shame, guilt, and remorse when we violate our conscience. In this way, our nature is a God given influence to obey His law.
6. The Bible states that homosexuality is against our nature (Rom. 1:26; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7). If our nature is sinful, how could there be a sin which is against our nature? Is sin (homosexuality) contrary to our sinful nature?
These are some Scriptural points taken from my booklet, "The Fall of Mankind":
1. Children do not inherit the guilt or sin of the parent: Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20.
2. Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13.
3. Responsibility is limited to or exactly proportionate to ability: Deut. 6:5, Deut. 10:12, Deut. 30:6, Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, 1 Cor. 10:13.
4. Accountability is limited to or exactly proportionate to knowledge: Matt. 11:21-22, Lk. 12:47-48, Lk. 23:34, Jn. 9:41, Jn. 15:22, Rom. 4:15, Rom. 5:13, Jas. 4:17, Jn. 19:11, Matt. 23:14, Mk.12:40, Lk. 20:47, Jas. 3:1, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Mk. 6:11, Lk. 10:12, Lk. 10:14, Heb. 10:26, 2 Pet. 2:21.
5. Through Adams leading, influence, and example men choose to become sinners: Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:19. Men choose to sin like Adam: Hos. 6:7. Adam has also opened up our eyes to good and evil (Gen. 3:22). With this knowledge we have all chosen to be sinners (Rom. 3:23), we have all chosen to do what we know to be wrong (Jas. 4:17).
6. Someone’s leading, influence, or example can cause others to choose to sin: 1 Kng. 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:13, 26; 21:22; 22:52; 2 Kng. 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 21:11, 16; 23:15, Neh. 13:26, Jer. 32:35, Isa. 3:12, Matt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2, 1 Cor. 8:9, Heb. 4:11.
7. Each individual is personally accountable for their own personal sins only: Deut. 24:16, 2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20, Matt. 16:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Cor. 11:15, 1 Pet. 1:17, Rev. 22:12.
8. Men are not born dead in sins, they become morally depraved and relationally separated from God when they voluntarily choose to sin: Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:14, Rom. 7:9, Rom. 7:11, Col. 2:13.
9. All men have personally and voluntarily chosen to become sinners: Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23.
10. Each individual originates their own sin out of their own heart: Matt. 12:35, Lk. 6:45.
11. Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17).
"Why was it important for Jesus to be born of a virgin?"
This is from my booklet "The Fall of Mankind"
Some have suggested that Christ was born of a virgin to avoid the reception of “original sin.” To them, sin is not a choice to transgress known Law (Jas. 4:17; 1 Jn. 3:4), sin is some abstract entity which lodges itself behind a person’s will, so that the will is necessitated to commit what they call “actual sin.” They reason that since Christ did not commit any actual sins, Christ must not have any original sin inside of Him, and that must be because He was born of a virgin.
However, scripture nowhere states that the reason of His virgin birth was to avoid inheriting original sin. This again is prejudicial conjecture, a “connecting the dots” out of bias. Rather, the Bible says Christ was born of a virgin as a sign (Isa. 7:14), and simply because God was His Father. It was not because some sort of sin stuff was hereditary, in the blood or in any other inherited part.
The lusts of the flesh that we inherit are temptations (James 1:14) but they are not sin themselves. Eve herself was tempted by her flesh (Gen. 3:6). But these passions are not a sin or are sinful. Rather, these lusts tempt us to sin and tempt us to become sinful. (James 1:15) All sin is of the heart or of the will (Matt. 15:19) but temptation is of the flesh or lusts (Rom. 7:13, Jas. 1:14).
The same God who formed Christ in the womb also formed each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). Scripture says that Christ was made human, partook of the same flesh and blood that we have (Heb. 2:14), and was made in all points like we are made (Heb. 2:17), so He was tempted in all points like we are (Heb. 2:15). The same lusts that we inherit that tempt us to sin Christ Himself received and so He was tempted to sin. (Matt. 4:1-11) Christ received the same type of body as those who use their bodies for sin, yet Christ condemned using the body for sin by not sinning (Rom. 8:3). There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body, it is simply an “instrument” that can be used by free will (yielded) as an “instrument of righteousness” or as an “instrument of unrighteousness” (Rom. 6:13, 6:19
Because the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful, instead of an instrument that could be used either way, they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is an Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
"So that he could come in the likeness of sinful flesh yet live without sin."
You are referring to Romans 8:3 which states, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...."
Many take this to mean that our flesh (skin, bones, blood, hair) is in and of itself a sin. Gnosticism believes that matter has moral qualities, therefore our skin, bones, blood and hair can be sinful.
But the Bible uses the word "flesh" in certain cases to mean people, or the individuals that inhabit the body. For example:
"And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh has corrupted HIS way upon the earth." Gen, 6:12
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven." Matt. 16:17
So when the Bible says that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, it simply means that he "was made in the likeness of men." Php. 2:7
This fits perfectly with Hebrews 2:14-17 which says that Jesus was made in all points like we have, having the same nature that we have.
“The Gnostics logically concluded that Jesus didn't come in the flesh because they forgot about the virgin birth!"
This presupposes that sin is transmitted through semen. Does sperm really have moral qualities that can be transmitted to another person? As Winkie Pratney asks, is sin a gas, solid, or a liquid? Or sin physical or is sin moral? Is sin a choice or is sin a substance? If sin can be inherited, it is a substance. If sin is a choice, it cannot be inherited.
The idea that the "virgin birth" was necessary in order to avoid the transmission of sin is an Augustinian idea. Augustine held on to the Manichean idea that flesh was sinful. The Augustinians and the Gnostic's agreed on this point. But the Gnostic's and the Augustinians solved the problem of Jesus sinlessness through different answers. Augustinians solved it by saying Jesus was born of a virgin, without sexual intercourse, and therefore was born without sin.
"He was fully God and fully Man, but didn't inherit the sinful seed of Adam."
Semen is the seed of man. Can there be such a thing as sinful semen or holy semen? Again, is sin a choice or a substance?
If sin is a substance, we can put it under a microscope and look at it. We could cut it off and put it in a jar, then we could go around and show it to all of our friends. If flesh is sinful, then the person who weighs 200 pounds is more sinful than the person who weighs 150 pounds. If a person has lyposuction, are they less sinful?
"Sinful nature in scripture...
Rom 7,8,13
Galatians 5&6
Eph 2:3
Colossians 2:11,13
2 Peter 2:10,18"
The problem is that many people translate the word "flesh" into sinful nature. That is how the NIV will translate the word flesh. In the Greek, the word is sarx. It is inconsistent for the NIV translators to translate sarx as "sinful nature" in some places but not in all places. For example, when the Bible says that Jesus had sarx in 1 Jn 4:3 and 2 Jn 1:7, the NIV translators, if consistent, would be saying that Jesus had a sinful nature.
Since the word "flesh" is applied to Jesus, yet Jesus was without sin, we must conclude that the flesh is not sinful in and of itself. We could use our flesh for sin, or we could use our flesh for the service of God. We cannot have glorified flesh in this life, but we could have sanctified flesh in this life. Even Jesus didn't have glorified flesh until after the resurrection. Jesus was subjected to physical death. But Jesus never used his flesh for sin, and Jesus did not serve His flesh supremely. That is why Jesus was without sin yet with flesh.
To "live after the flesh" simply means that you are governed by your feelings and desires, instead of being governed by your conscience. It means that you live supremely for self-gratification, instead of for the glory of God.
This is from my booklet "Sinners by Choice or by Constitution":
Christians still live “in the flesh” (2 Cor 10:3), but they do not live “according” to it. (2 Cor 10:2) The physical body that Christians have is the same exact physical body they had when they were children of wrath (Php 3:11-12), and it will remain the same exact body until they die (2 Peter 1:14) until the resurrection when they receive a glorified body. (1 Cor 15:53-54)
While the constitution itself is the same, the usage of the constitution has changed. Christians have obeyed the command to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom 12:1). “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.“ (Gal 5:24) Christians are those who “let not sin reign in” their “mortal body” to “obey it in the lusts thereof”. (Rom 6:12) Christians have gone from being governed by the flesh (Col 3:7) to being governed by Christ. (Col 1:13) They have cleansed themselves from the filthiness of the flesh. (2 Cor 7:1)
"Do you believe that we are born with a neutral nature?..."
We are born with a nature that has desires, which can be gratified in a natural or unnatural way, in a lawful or unlawful manner. The devil tempts us to gratify our natural desires in a forbidden way, just as he tempted Eve to gratify her desires in an unlawful manner.
We are born with a fallen body, one that is subjected to death and disease because we are not in the Garden of Eden with the tree of life. But we are born morally innocent. We ourselves form our own moral character when we make moral choices. Moral knowledge + moral choices = moral character.
"if so why have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?"
Why have all men chosen to be sinners? Here are some answers I think are good.
FROM CHARLES FINNEY:
2. All moral depravity commences in substantially the same way.
Proof:
(1.) The impulses of the sensibility are developed, and gradually commencing from the birth, and depending on physical development and birth.
(2.) The first acts of will are in obedience to these.
(3.) Self-gratification is the rule of action previous to the developement of reason.
(4.) No resistance is offered to the will's indulgence of appetite, until a habit of self-indulgence is formed.
(5.) When reason affirms moral obligation, it finds the will in a state of habitual and constant committal to the impulses of the sensibility.
(6.) The demands of the sensibility have become more and more despotic every hour of indulgence.
(7.) In this state of things, unless the Holy Spirit interpose, the idea of moral obligation will be but dimly developed.
(8.) The will of course rejects the bidding of reason, and cleaves to self-indulgence.
(9.) This is the settling of a fundamental, question. It is deciding in favour of appetite, against the claims of conscience and of God.
(10.) Light once rejected, can be afterwards more easily resisted, until it is nearly excluded altogether.
(11.) Selfishness confirms, and strengthens, and perpetuates itself by a natural process. It grows with the sinner's growth, and strengthens with his strength; and will do so for ever, unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth,
(Lectures on Systematic Theology, page 345-346)
FROM GORDON OLSON:
THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN IN THE WORLD IS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS FOLLOWS:
1. Hereditary physical tendencies tend toward softness and self-sympathy, beginning early in life....
2. Physical consciousness and experiences through the five senses are cultivated prior to the dawn of moral accountability.
3. Moral influences of our immediate and social environment lead us to choose similar habits of life by imitation and often persuasion (I Pe. 1:18).
4. At the dawn of moral accountability, as obligation to God and other beings is beginning to be perceived, moral enlightenment appears to make a dim impact because of our already established manner of living.
5. The will now determines to press on in this self-gratification against these new realizations, the habit of self -indulgence now becoming sinful and involves new concentrations in its pursuit (Is.
53:6; Ro. 3:23; I Pe. 2:25).
(The Truth Shall Set You Free, page 79-80)
FROM WINKIE PRATNEY:
WHY DO CHILDREN SIN?
How, then does a child sin! One does not have to teach a child to do wrong. The explanation becomes clear if we carefully consider the development of a man. A baby enters the world as the object of its parent's fondness, unceasing care, and concession by those who guard it. In these circumstances, the natural, inherited appetites are Just developed; and the child's natural love of conscious freedom begins to express itself. The feelings develop long before the reason, and both are deeply entrenched before the spirit begins to awaken to the claims of God. Much depends at this point on the parents. If they are faithful in their duty to God, they must train their child to yield up its own way when that self- willed way will interfere with the happiness of others. The child will learn at first obedience to its parents only in a love/discipline relationship; it is here that the habit of response to authority must be ingrained in the child's soul, so that later, when God opens up the spiritual understanding, the child will surrender to Him (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 6:20-2 3; 10: 17; 13:18; 15:5;31-32; Ephesians 6: 1; Colossians 3:20).
Since the feelings develop before the reason and conscience, the will begins to form the habit of obeying desire, which deepens every day. The obvious consequence is that self indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of the child long before it can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere with the right or happiness of others.
This repeated bias grows, stronger each day before a knowledge of right or duty could possibly have entered the mind. Finally, the moment of true moral responsibility arrives.
The child is now old enough to understand wrong. (This will probably be earlier in a Christian home than in a non-Christian one.) Does the child approach this test in a perfectly neutral state? If Adam, in the maturity of his reason, with full consciousness of the morality of his actions could give in to such temptation, is there any doubt that a child will not? The moment that child chooses selfishly, it sins. From this point on (and NOT before) God holds the child responsible for its own actions and destiny. It is significant that all words of the Lord to sinners begin FROM THEIR YOUTH, and NOT from birth, as some have supposed.
(Youth Aflame, page 89-90)
FROM MICHAEL & DEBI PEARL
“God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite… The infant cannot think of terms of duty, responsibility, or moral choice…. The self-centeredness of infants has all the appearances of a vice. But they are acting on natural, God-given impulses to survive and seek their own pleasure…. They do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to say “No” to appetites and impulses. They cannot yet be held responsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness…. But the growing child or adult who doesn’t rise above self-indulging desires has fallen from God’s intention and design. The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… When does this innocent, natural selfishness of a child become sin? In other words, when is a child to blame? Keep in mind that a child will not come under condemnation until his moral faculties are fully operative… When a child goes against his conscience, however limited and incomplete his understanding may be, he is then guilty. The degree to which his understanding has developed is the degree to which his actions can be called sin…. As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.” Michael & Debi Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20)
Here are some more good quotes I have compiled over the years on the entire "sinful nature" or "original sin" issue. These are from my outline "Are Men Born Homosexuals?"
"If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43)
“Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
“If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
“And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 43, published by The Boydell Press).
"If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice." Ignatius (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume One, p. 61)
“The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.” Origen (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For is they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if it true that he was born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. In fact the murderer, the rapist, and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the rapist or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created al men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. No man is born a homosexual.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8).
Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.” (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261).
An unknown writer in the Early Church said, “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press).
“To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, ot only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.” Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115).
“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good…. Men must go against their nature to sin.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7).
“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).
“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).
"We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).
"Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine
(Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36).
“If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not consent to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” Charles Finney (Systematic Theology pg. 191).
“Moral beings themselves are the author of their own rebellion, which is an unintelligent abuse of their God-given endowments of personality…. It is man who has abused his God-given freedom.” Gordon Olson (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg. 31, 38)
“The Bible declares that men, having been created upright and in the image of God, have corrupted themselves and sinned against the good nature that God created them with.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Not Born Sinners, pg. 3).
“Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way - they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing as the end of their being. That is sin.” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 64-65)
"Now remember, sin is a crime. It is the committal of the will to the principle and practice of governing one's life to please one's self. In other words, when the Scripture says, 'all have sinned,' it is saying that upon reaching the age of accountability, every individual has chosen to govern and control his life to please himself... We know that upon reaching the age of accountability, each of us chose as the principle by which we would live: 'I am going to govern and control my own life." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 85).
First, you need to define nature. Our nature is our constitution. It includes our spirit, soul, and body. It also includes our mind, will, and emotions. It is our structure, our constitution.
Now, by "sinful nature" what exactly do you mean?
If you mean:
1. Some people mean that our nature is sinful in and of itself. In other words, our constitution has moral qualities independent of our will. Usually people mean our flesh. But our flesh is just dirt. God made us out of the dirt. Can there be such a thing as "sinful dirt". Can moral qualities be perscribed to physical matter? Moral states are states of the will. Moral qualities can only be prescribed to states of the will. You cannot have a sinful flesh anymore than you can have a sinful rock or a sinful leaf. Matter has no moral qualities in and of itself. The physical and the moral must be distinguished between. Morality always has to do with the moral law of God and the human will.
Men do not deserve the wrath of God because of the type of flesh that they involuntarily inherit at birth, nor because of the type of nature that God forms in the womb. Men deserve hell because of their own free choices to violate the moral law of God as it is revealed to their mind. Sinners are not victims (birth) but are criminals (choice). If our body or flesh was truly "sinful" at birth, than we would deserve hell for having it, we would be under God's wrath for having it, yet we haven't made any conscious choices yet! How can a moral being be justly under wrath or deserve punishment before ever making any conscious choices?
2. Some people mean that our nature forces us to sin. This is known as necessitarianism. These theologians advance a scheme where our nature determines the states of our will. But this is not and cannot be true. If it was true, we could never deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. We could never crucify our flesh or deny our passions. The truth is that our nature influences our choices but does not determine them. Both emotions and conscience are parts of our nature. Our emotions and feelings want gratification (which have their proper place) but ultimately we are to be governed by our conscience. Our will is free to obey our emotions or to obey our conscience. Neither our emotions necessitate our will nor does our conscience. The will is always free to choose between them.
3. Some people mean that our nature influences us to sin. This is not precisely true. Again, our nature is made up of many elements, two of which are sensibilities and intelligence. The "lusts of the flesh" and the "lusts of the mind" both belong to the sensibilities. Our conscience belongs to our intelligence. Our conscience tells us to obey God. Our conscience influences us not to sin. Since our conscience is an element of our nature, we could say that our nature influences us to obey God, our nature tells us not to sin. On the other hand, our body has passions and desires that want gratification. It is not "sin" that our bodies crave, it is gratification that our body desires, whether it be lawful or unlawful gratification. Your body doesn't care if you gratify it's sexual desire through marriage or fornication. It doesn't "crave sin", it craves gratification through whatever means, legal or illegal. Likewise you have an appetite for food. Your body doesn't care if you gratify this desire through stealing bread or purchasing bread. The "means" is irrelevent to your body. But the "end" that it craves is not sin, but gratification. Men sin, not for the sake of sinning, but because of the gratification that it brings. Sin is not an "end", sin is a means to an end, and that end is gratification.
4. Some people mean our habits when they talk about our sinful nature. This uses the word nature in a broader sense than our constitution. This relates to our moral nature. Our free choices developes habits. If a person continually sins, sinning becomes natural to them. It becomes their normal state, their usual conduct. In this way, men do have "sinful natures". Through their free will they have developed habits through which sinning has become normal and natural to them. We see this in Ephesians 2:3.
Consider the following:
1. The state of our nature or body at birth is not our fault because it is not our choice. Our choice or will has no role in determining what condition our nature or flesh will be in when we are born. Therefore we cannot be justly held accountable for the state of our nature at birth.
2. God is the one who forms us in the womb. The state of our nature or body at birth is determined by God. If our nature or body is "sinful" at birth, it is God's fault.
3. By saying that we are sinners "by birth" because of our nature, we are thereby eleviating ourselves from all blame and are actually blaming God for our sin. But in the Bible God continually holds sinners responsible for their sin. God is angry with sinners for their sin and punishes sinners. Therefore it must be their own fault, it must be their own choice.
4. Sin is transgression of God's law. God's law tells us what types of choices to make, not what type of flesh to have. Therefore only our choices can be sinful but our body cannot be.
5. Our conscience is an element of our nature and it tells us not to sin. We naturally feel shame, guilt, and remorse when we violate our conscience. In this way, our nature is a God given influence to obey His law.
6. The Bible states that homosexuality is against our nature (Rom. 1:26; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7). If our nature is sinful, how could there be a sin which is against our nature? Is sin (homosexuality) contrary to our sinful nature?
These are some Scriptural points taken from my booklet, "The Fall of Mankind":
1. Children do not inherit the guilt or sin of the parent: Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20.
2. Sinners are separated from God for their own sin: Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 7:9, Col. 2:13.
3. Responsibility is limited to or exactly proportionate to ability: Deut. 6:5, Deut. 10:12, Deut. 30:6, Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, 1 Cor. 10:13.
4. Accountability is limited to or exactly proportionate to knowledge: Matt. 11:21-22, Lk. 12:47-48, Lk. 23:34, Jn. 9:41, Jn. 15:22, Rom. 4:15, Rom. 5:13, Jas. 4:17, Jn. 19:11, Matt. 23:14, Mk.12:40, Lk. 20:47, Jas. 3:1, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Mk. 6:11, Lk. 10:12, Lk. 10:14, Heb. 10:26, 2 Pet. 2:21.
5. Through Adams leading, influence, and example men choose to become sinners: Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:19. Men choose to sin like Adam: Hos. 6:7. Adam has also opened up our eyes to good and evil (Gen. 3:22). With this knowledge we have all chosen to be sinners (Rom. 3:23), we have all chosen to do what we know to be wrong (Jas. 4:17).
6. Someone’s leading, influence, or example can cause others to choose to sin: 1 Kng. 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:13, 26; 21:22; 22:52; 2 Kng. 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 21:11, 16; 23:15, Neh. 13:26, Jer. 32:35, Isa. 3:12, Matt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2, 1 Cor. 8:9, Heb. 4:11.
7. Each individual is personally accountable for their own personal sins only: Deut. 24:16, 2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20, Matt. 16:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Cor. 11:15, 1 Pet. 1:17, Rev. 22:12.
8. Men are not born dead in sins, they become morally depraved and relationally separated from God when they voluntarily choose to sin: Isa. 59:2, Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:14, Rom. 7:9, Rom. 7:11, Col. 2:13.
9. All men have personally and voluntarily chosen to become sinners: Gen. 6:12, Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9, Ps. 14:2-3, Isa. 53:6, Ecc. 7:29, Rom. 3:23.
10. Each individual originates their own sin out of their own heart: Matt. 12:35, Lk. 6:45.
11. Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17).
"Why was it important for Jesus to be born of a virgin?"
This is from my booklet "The Fall of Mankind"
Some have suggested that Christ was born of a virgin to avoid the reception of “original sin.” To them, sin is not a choice to transgress known Law (Jas. 4:17; 1 Jn. 3:4), sin is some abstract entity which lodges itself behind a person’s will, so that the will is necessitated to commit what they call “actual sin.” They reason that since Christ did not commit any actual sins, Christ must not have any original sin inside of Him, and that must be because He was born of a virgin.
However, scripture nowhere states that the reason of His virgin birth was to avoid inheriting original sin. This again is prejudicial conjecture, a “connecting the dots” out of bias. Rather, the Bible says Christ was born of a virgin as a sign (Isa. 7:14), and simply because God was His Father. It was not because some sort of sin stuff was hereditary, in the blood or in any other inherited part.
The lusts of the flesh that we inherit are temptations (James 1:14) but they are not sin themselves. Eve herself was tempted by her flesh (Gen. 3:6). But these passions are not a sin or are sinful. Rather, these lusts tempt us to sin and tempt us to become sinful. (James 1:15) All sin is of the heart or of the will (Matt. 15:19) but temptation is of the flesh or lusts (Rom. 7:13, Jas. 1:14).
The same God who formed Christ in the womb also formed each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). Scripture says that Christ was made human, partook of the same flesh and blood that we have (Heb. 2:14), and was made in all points like we are made (Heb. 2:17), so He was tempted in all points like we are (Heb. 2:15). The same lusts that we inherit that tempt us to sin Christ Himself received and so He was tempted to sin. (Matt. 4:1-11) Christ received the same type of body as those who use their bodies for sin, yet Christ condemned using the body for sin by not sinning (Rom. 8:3). There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body, it is simply an “instrument” that can be used by free will (yielded) as an “instrument of righteousness” or as an “instrument of unrighteousness” (Rom. 6:13, 6:19
Because the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful, instead of an instrument that could be used either way, they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is an Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
"So that he could come in the likeness of sinful flesh yet live without sin."
You are referring to Romans 8:3 which states, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...."
Many take this to mean that our flesh (skin, bones, blood, hair) is in and of itself a sin. Gnosticism believes that matter has moral qualities, therefore our skin, bones, blood and hair can be sinful.
But the Bible uses the word "flesh" in certain cases to mean people, or the individuals that inhabit the body. For example:
"And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh has corrupted HIS way upon the earth." Gen, 6:12
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven." Matt. 16:17
So when the Bible says that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, it simply means that he "was made in the likeness of men." Php. 2:7
This fits perfectly with Hebrews 2:14-17 which says that Jesus was made in all points like we have, having the same nature that we have.
“The Gnostics logically concluded that Jesus didn't come in the flesh because they forgot about the virgin birth!"
This presupposes that sin is transmitted through semen. Does sperm really have moral qualities that can be transmitted to another person? As Winkie Pratney asks, is sin a gas, solid, or a liquid? Or sin physical or is sin moral? Is sin a choice or is sin a substance? If sin can be inherited, it is a substance. If sin is a choice, it cannot be inherited.
The idea that the "virgin birth" was necessary in order to avoid the transmission of sin is an Augustinian idea. Augustine held on to the Manichean idea that flesh was sinful. The Augustinians and the Gnostic's agreed on this point. But the Gnostic's and the Augustinians solved the problem of Jesus sinlessness through different answers. Augustinians solved it by saying Jesus was born of a virgin, without sexual intercourse, and therefore was born without sin.
"He was fully God and fully Man, but didn't inherit the sinful seed of Adam."
Semen is the seed of man. Can there be such a thing as sinful semen or holy semen? Again, is sin a choice or a substance?
If sin is a substance, we can put it under a microscope and look at it. We could cut it off and put it in a jar, then we could go around and show it to all of our friends. If flesh is sinful, then the person who weighs 200 pounds is more sinful than the person who weighs 150 pounds. If a person has lyposuction, are they less sinful?
"Sinful nature in scripture...
Rom 7,8,13
Galatians 5&6
Eph 2:3
Colossians 2:11,13
2 Peter 2:10,18"
The problem is that many people translate the word "flesh" into sinful nature. That is how the NIV will translate the word flesh. In the Greek, the word is sarx. It is inconsistent for the NIV translators to translate sarx as "sinful nature" in some places but not in all places. For example, when the Bible says that Jesus had sarx in 1 Jn 4:3 and 2 Jn 1:7, the NIV translators, if consistent, would be saying that Jesus had a sinful nature.
Since the word "flesh" is applied to Jesus, yet Jesus was without sin, we must conclude that the flesh is not sinful in and of itself. We could use our flesh for sin, or we could use our flesh for the service of God. We cannot have glorified flesh in this life, but we could have sanctified flesh in this life. Even Jesus didn't have glorified flesh until after the resurrection. Jesus was subjected to physical death. But Jesus never used his flesh for sin, and Jesus did not serve His flesh supremely. That is why Jesus was without sin yet with flesh.
To "live after the flesh" simply means that you are governed by your feelings and desires, instead of being governed by your conscience. It means that you live supremely for self-gratification, instead of for the glory of God.
This is from my booklet "Sinners by Choice or by Constitution":
Christians still live “in the flesh” (2 Cor 10:3), but they do not live “according” to it. (2 Cor 10:2) The physical body that Christians have is the same exact physical body they had when they were children of wrath (Php 3:11-12), and it will remain the same exact body until they die (2 Peter 1:14) until the resurrection when they receive a glorified body. (1 Cor 15:53-54)
While the constitution itself is the same, the usage of the constitution has changed. Christians have obeyed the command to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom 12:1). “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.“ (Gal 5:24) Christians are those who “let not sin reign in” their “mortal body” to “obey it in the lusts thereof”. (Rom 6:12) Christians have gone from being governed by the flesh (Col 3:7) to being governed by Christ. (Col 1:13) They have cleansed themselves from the filthiness of the flesh. (2 Cor 7:1)
"Do you believe that we are born with a neutral nature?..."
We are born with a nature that has desires, which can be gratified in a natural or unnatural way, in a lawful or unlawful manner. The devil tempts us to gratify our natural desires in a forbidden way, just as he tempted Eve to gratify her desires in an unlawful manner.
We are born with a fallen body, one that is subjected to death and disease because we are not in the Garden of Eden with the tree of life. But we are born morally innocent. We ourselves form our own moral character when we make moral choices. Moral knowledge + moral choices = moral character.
"if so why have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?"
Why have all men chosen to be sinners? Here are some answers I think are good.
FROM CHARLES FINNEY:
2. All moral depravity commences in substantially the same way.
Proof:
(1.) The impulses of the sensibility are developed, and gradually commencing from the birth, and depending on physical development and birth.
(2.) The first acts of will are in obedience to these.
(3.) Self-gratification is the rule of action previous to the developement of reason.
(4.) No resistance is offered to the will's indulgence of appetite, until a habit of self-indulgence is formed.
(5.) When reason affirms moral obligation, it finds the will in a state of habitual and constant committal to the impulses of the sensibility.
(6.) The demands of the sensibility have become more and more despotic every hour of indulgence.
(7.) In this state of things, unless the Holy Spirit interpose, the idea of moral obligation will be but dimly developed.
(8.) The will of course rejects the bidding of reason, and cleaves to self-indulgence.
(9.) This is the settling of a fundamental, question. It is deciding in favour of appetite, against the claims of conscience and of God.
(10.) Light once rejected, can be afterwards more easily resisted, until it is nearly excluded altogether.
(11.) Selfishness confirms, and strengthens, and perpetuates itself by a natural process. It grows with the sinner's growth, and strengthens with his strength; and will do so for ever, unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth,
(Lectures on Systematic Theology, page 345-346)
FROM GORDON OLSON:
THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN IN THE WORLD IS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS FOLLOWS:
1. Hereditary physical tendencies tend toward softness and self-sympathy, beginning early in life....
2. Physical consciousness and experiences through the five senses are cultivated prior to the dawn of moral accountability.
3. Moral influences of our immediate and social environment lead us to choose similar habits of life by imitation and often persuasion (I Pe. 1:18).
4. At the dawn of moral accountability, as obligation to God and other beings is beginning to be perceived, moral enlightenment appears to make a dim impact because of our already established manner of living.
5. The will now determines to press on in this self-gratification against these new realizations, the habit of self -indulgence now becoming sinful and involves new concentrations in its pursuit (Is.
53:6; Ro. 3:23; I Pe. 2:25).
(The Truth Shall Set You Free, page 79-80)
FROM WINKIE PRATNEY:
WHY DO CHILDREN SIN?
How, then does a child sin! One does not have to teach a child to do wrong. The explanation becomes clear if we carefully consider the development of a man. A baby enters the world as the object of its parent's fondness, unceasing care, and concession by those who guard it. In these circumstances, the natural, inherited appetites are Just developed; and the child's natural love of conscious freedom begins to express itself. The feelings develop long before the reason, and both are deeply entrenched before the spirit begins to awaken to the claims of God. Much depends at this point on the parents. If they are faithful in their duty to God, they must train their child to yield up its own way when that self- willed way will interfere with the happiness of others. The child will learn at first obedience to its parents only in a love/discipline relationship; it is here that the habit of response to authority must be ingrained in the child's soul, so that later, when God opens up the spiritual understanding, the child will surrender to Him (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 6:20-2 3; 10: 17; 13:18; 15:5;31-32; Ephesians 6: 1; Colossians 3:20).
Since the feelings develop before the reason and conscience, the will begins to form the habit of obeying desire, which deepens every day. The obvious consequence is that self indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of the child long before it can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere with the right or happiness of others.
This repeated bias grows, stronger each day before a knowledge of right or duty could possibly have entered the mind. Finally, the moment of true moral responsibility arrives.
The child is now old enough to understand wrong. (This will probably be earlier in a Christian home than in a non-Christian one.) Does the child approach this test in a perfectly neutral state? If Adam, in the maturity of his reason, with full consciousness of the morality of his actions could give in to such temptation, is there any doubt that a child will not? The moment that child chooses selfishly, it sins. From this point on (and NOT before) God holds the child responsible for its own actions and destiny. It is significant that all words of the Lord to sinners begin FROM THEIR YOUTH, and NOT from birth, as some have supposed.
(Youth Aflame, page 89-90)
FROM MICHAEL & DEBI PEARL
“God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite… The infant cannot think of terms of duty, responsibility, or moral choice…. The self-centeredness of infants has all the appearances of a vice. But they are acting on natural, God-given impulses to survive and seek their own pleasure…. They do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to say “No” to appetites and impulses. They cannot yet be held responsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness…. But the growing child or adult who doesn’t rise above self-indulging desires has fallen from God’s intention and design. The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… When does this innocent, natural selfishness of a child become sin? In other words, when is a child to blame? Keep in mind that a child will not come under condemnation until his moral faculties are fully operative… When a child goes against his conscience, however limited and incomplete his understanding may be, he is then guilty. The degree to which his understanding has developed is the degree to which his actions can be called sin…. As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.” Michael & Debi Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20)
Here are some more good quotes I have compiled over the years on the entire "sinful nature" or "original sin" issue. These are from my outline "Are Men Born Homosexuals?"
"If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43)
“Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
“If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
“And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 43, published by The Boydell Press).
"If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice." Ignatius (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume One, p. 61)
“The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.” Origen (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 289, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
“Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying that they were born homosexual. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil actions of perversion. For is they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if it true that he was born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. In fact the murderer, the rapist, and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the rapist or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created al men with a good nature. All sin is a corruption of man’s nature, it is a perversion of man’s nature. It is rebellion against our nature – it is rebellion against the ‘law of God written in our hearts’ and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the ‘disease of alcoholism’. No man is born a homosexual.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 8).
Charles Finney said, “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.” (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261).
An unknown writer in the Early Church said, “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press).
“To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, ot only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.” Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115).
“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good…. Men must go against their nature to sin.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7).
“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).
“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).
"We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).
"Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine
(Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36).
“If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not consent to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” Charles Finney (Systematic Theology pg. 191).
“Moral beings themselves are the author of their own rebellion, which is an unintelligent abuse of their God-given endowments of personality…. It is man who has abused his God-given freedom.” Gordon Olson (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg. 31, 38)
“The Bible declares that men, having been created upright and in the image of God, have corrupted themselves and sinned against the good nature that God created them with.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Not Born Sinners, pg. 3).
“Are people in trouble spiritually because they inherit some spiritual defect from their parents or grandparents? No. They are in trouble because when they reach the age of accountability they deliberately turn their own way - they commit their will to the principle and practice of pleasing as the end of their being. That is sin.” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 64-65)
"Now remember, sin is a crime. It is the committal of the will to the principle and practice of governing one's life to please one's self. In other words, when the Scripture says, 'all have sinned,' it is saying that upon reaching the age of accountability, every individual has chosen to govern and control his life to please himself... We know that upon reaching the age of accountability, each of us chose as the principle by which we would live: 'I am going to govern and control my own life." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 85).