A question about man's sin nature

evangelist

It says here that this is a Christian sub-forum.
Are there are any Christians here who do NOT believe that man has an inherited sin nature?

Peregrinus

evangelist wrote: »

It says here that this is a Christian sub-forum.
Are there are any Christians here who do NOT believe that man has an inherited sin nature?

"Inherited sin nature" is a jargon phrase that seems to turn up in a number of US-oriented Protestant discussions. It's not clear to me whether it's simply an attempt to relabel what is more commonly called orginal sin, or whether it points to something a bit more specific. The phrase strikes me as problematic because, in most mainstream Christian traditions, sinfulness is not our natural condition; it's our fallen condition. Therefore we don't have a "sin nature" (assuming that means a sinful nature); we have a redeemed or perfected nature, from which we are alienated by the Fall. Sin is therefore not our nature, but an aberration from our nature.

Perhaps, evangelist, a good starting point for this discussion would be for you to say why you use the phrase "inherited sin nature", which as far as I can see is not biblical or patristic, and to say what you mean by it. Then other posters would have a better sense of whether they agree with you or not.

SoulandForm

Pereginus some Christians would say that we inherit a nature prone to sin as opposed to a nature that is in itself sinful so while they could be said to believe in Original sin they would not believe in an inherited sin nature.

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

Pereginus some Christians would say that we inherit a nature prone to sin as opposed to a nature that is in itself sinful so while they could be said to believe in Original sin they would not believe in an inherited sin nature.

How is a nature prone to sin not the same thing as a sin nature?

Would you mind explaining this?

I think the idea that as a result of the fall that we have inherited a sinful nature is quite Biblical. Many of the Reformers called it total depravity.

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

How is a nature prone to sin not the same thing as a sin nature?

Would you mind explaining this?

A nature prone to sin does merit punishment. A sinful nature does.

Its the difference between believing unbaptized/unsaved infants go to hell and believing they go to either limbo or heaven.

homer911

SoulandForm wrote: »

A nature prone to sin does merit punishment. A sinful nature does.

Its the difference between believing unbaptized/unsaved infants go to hell and believing they go to either limbo or heaven.

The bible tells us that we all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, therefore we all deserve punishment. Where are you going with this?

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Inherited sin nature" is a jargon phrase that seems to turn up in a number of US-oriented Protestant discussions.

This is one of the things that gets my goat about some peoples commentary.

Let's leave aside that the idea that sin entered the world through Adam is entirely Biblical and has been discussed at length even by church fathers such as Augustine, and let's leave aside the idea that imputed righteousness through Christ is a Biblical idea. Let's park those.

This view that theology that was taught during the Protestant Reformation in Europe, and theology that has been a constituent part of most Protestant / Reformed denominations is somehow American-based is just plain silly. It is extremely simplistic, and it shows ignorance about the nature of Protestantism.

This sneering attitude that everything that is discussed in Reformed / Evangelical circles must come from America is extremely unhelpful.

SoulandForm

homer911 wrote: »

The bible tells us that we all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, therefore we all deserve punishment. Where are you going with this?

Arminianists and Pelagians accept that but they wouldnt accept that humanity has a sin nature.

I was merely pointing out that the term Original sin covers a lot of different beliefs.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

This is one of the things that gets my goat about some peoples commentary.

. . . This view that theology that was taught during the Protestant Reformation in Europe, and theology that has been a constituent part of most Protestant / Reformed denominations is somehow American-based is just plain silly. It is extremely simplistic, and it shows ignorance about the nature of Protestantism.

This sneering attitude that everything that is discussed in Reformed / Evangelical circles must come from America is extremely unhelpful.

I’m sorry if I get your goat, Phil. That’s not my intention.

And I’m not trying to suggest that all Reformed thinking comes from the US (or that, to the extent that it does, this somehow devalues it).

My point was simply this; “inherited sin nature” is not a biblical term. Nor is it a patristic term. (It may of course refer to a biblical concept, but as the term itself is not biblical we can't be sure that it does - or, if it does, which biblical concept.)

So, in understanding what it means, it helps to find out where it comes from. And a quick google tells me that it seems to come from US-based Protestant circles, which gives me some context for grappling with the question of what Evangelist might mean by the term. Not a huge amount, since US Protestant circles are pretty diverse. But, still.

And, until Evangelist comes back to tell us what he means by the phrase, this is pretty much the best I can do to try and work out what the phrase signfies.

Is the “US” bit in “US Protestant” relevant? Yes, I think it is. American culture has a very strong streak of individualism, and I think this does show up in their religious thinking, where there tends to be more focus on the individual and less on the community than you would get in Europe. At the risk of oversimplifying, this is part of why Anglicanism and Lutheranism are rather more prominent in European Protestant traditions than they are in the US, while the reverse is true of Calvinist and Anabaptist traditions.

Of course, the causation could be the other way around; distinctively American religious traditions gave them their individualism. But, for the present purposes, it doesn’t matter which way around it works; US Protestantism has sufficiently different emphases from European Protestantism to make it useful to note that a particular articulation of a particular theological concept comes from the US, or from Europe, as the case may be.

philologos

I couldn't disagree more. Practically every form of Protestantism deals with justification. Even Anglicanism, Methodism and Lutheranism. America doesn't come into it and I think its plain wrong to bring it in as if this was invented there.

I am fairly sure that evangelist will come back and quote somewhere from Romans 5 which does clearly say that sin entered the world as a result of Adam. This will demonstrate that it isn't just a "Protestant" idea either but a Christian one.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. Practically every form of Protestantism deals with justification . . .

Well, for that matter Catholicism deals with justification too. As, I don’t doubt, do the various traditions of Eastern Christianity.

But we’re not talking in general terms about justification here; we’re talking about the phrase “inherited sin nature”. It’s not biblical, it’s not patristic, it’s unfamiliar to me, and it seems obvious that the people who coined and use this phrase must mean something by it. And, while waiting for evangelist to come back to tell us what he means by it, I still think we can learn a certain amount by looking at the theological and ecclesiological context which frames the discourse in which this term is employed. And, right enough, it does seem from a cursory search to be employed only in a particular, as yet not very well-defined, theological contexts which is a hint that, for those who use it, it may well have theological connotations, significance, relevance, etc which are not immediately obvious to us.

philologos wrote: »

I am fairly sure that evangelist will come back and quote somewhere from Romans 5 which does clearly say that sin entered the world as a result of Adam.

Well, time will tell (I hope). But, assuming evangelist does come back and say that, Romans 5 is common to all Christian traditions, but they don’t all employ terms like “inherited sin nature”. So, even if it is rooted in Romans 5, it may still reflect a particular understanding of that text which may - when we know what it is - turn out not to be an understanding not common to all Christians; perhaps not even to all Protestant Christians!

philologos wrote: »

This will demonstrate that it isn't just a "Protestant" idea either but a Christian one.

Well, a Protestant idea would be definition be a Christian one. But it might not be the only Christian one, or the only Protestant one. And we might all profit by understanding the idea, comparing, contrasting and connecting it with other Christian ideas, seeking perhaps to restate it in more familiar language, etc. But we won’t be able to do that unless evangelist comes back and tells us what the idea is.

And if, when evangelist does come back, it turns out that the theological context from which this term emerges is not a US Protestant one, I will stand you a pint. I can’t say fairer than that, now, can I?

On edit: When I google "sin nature", the very first hit returned (from someone associated with Gateway Church in Dallas/Ft Worth) tells me that "most churches teach a wrong concept of 'sin nature'", and he constructs an argument based on contrasting the language of the NIV with the language of the AV. (He prefers the latter.) So my supposition that the phrase might be one which calls attention to a Christian controversy rather than to Christian agreement may not be entirely baseless.

philologos

The point which I'm straining to make is if the concept is described in Scripture and if it is mentioned by the Reformers in Europe then it just is plain wrong to say it is an American idea. The furthest you can go is say that many Christians in America believe this.

Peregrinus

I never said it was an American idea; I said it was an American term. For all I know, it may be a term used in certain US Protestant circles to describe an idea already perfectly familiar to us, one which is widely accepted, or one which is a matter of controversy. Or it may describe a novel idea. We'll never know unless evangelist tells us.

SoulandForm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I never said it was an American idea; I said it was an American term. For all I know, it may be a term used in certain US Protestant circles to describe an idea already perfectly familiar to us, one which is widely accepted, or one which is a matter of controversy. Or it may describe a novel idea. We'll never know unless evangelist tells us.

Im nearly sure that St Augustine did use the term.

While I agree that the danger of the influence of American individualism is something to be concerned I dont see how this idea, shared in essence by the RCs who believe in Original Guilt, is a product of that. Infact given how it stresses the human race's solidarity in Adam it could be called the opposite.

Peregrinus

SoulandForm wrote: »

While I agree that the danger of the influence of American individualism is something to be concerned I dont see how this idea, shared in essence by the RCs who believe in Original Guilt, is a product of that. Infact given how it stresses the human race's solidarity in Adam it could be called the opposite.

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to suggest that this term in particular was an expression of US individualism; I just mentioned US individualism to illustrate that noting that a term comes from the US may be relevant in understanding what the term means and how it is used.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

I never said it was an American idea; I said it was an American term. For all I know, it may be a term used in certain US Protestant circles to describe an idea already perfectly familiar to us, one which is widely accepted, or one which is a matter of controversy. Or it may describe a novel idea. We'll never know unless evangelist tells us.

It really isn't an American term. I've heard it discussed extensively and I've never attended church in the United States.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

It really isn't an American term. I've heard it discussed extensively and I've never attended church in the United States.

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Can I ask, Phil, in the context that you hear it in, what does it mean? Is it an alternative for "original sin"? Or does it reflect some particular understanding of original sin? Or is it something people contrast with original sin? Is it effectively a synonym for total depravity?

(Or am I completely off-track in thinking of original sin at all in this context?)

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Can I ask, Phil, in the context that you hear it in, what does it mean? Is it an alternative for "original sin"? Or does it reflect some particular understanding of original sin? Or is it something people contrast with original sin? Is it effectively a synonym for total depravity?

(Or am I completely off-track in thinking of original sin at all in this context?)

You're not off track. In January at my church we looked for 4 weeks at the affect of the Fall what it means in respect to our relationship with God, in terms of work and in terms of the affect on human relationships.

When Adam sinned it affected us so that we all sin as a result, that is why it is only through Jesus' death and resurrection that we can ever hope to be made right with God.

If you want the links to the sermons I'm talking about PM me.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im nearly sure that St Augustine did use the term.

While I agree that the danger of the influence of American individualism is something to be concerned I dont see how this idea, shared in essence by the RCs who believe in Original Guilt, is a product of that. Infact given how it stresses the human race's solidarity in Adam it could be called the opposite.

Catholics don't believe in 'Original guilt' or we wouldn't understand Original sin as something that would be our 'fault' as such either - I think the difference is that we look on original sin as a loss of perfect holiness and charity which has wounded all human nature since Adam, and thus we are 'fallen'....Fallen from perfect grace and holiness in nature.

Sin is not something committed by us, but as a consequence of being born from Adam we inherit a 'nature' not the 'guilt' or the 'fault'...

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

Catholics don't believe in 'Original guilt' or we wouldn't understand Original sin as something that would be our 'fault' as such either - I think the difference is that we look on original sin as a loss of perfect holiness and charity which has wounded all human nature since Adam, and thus we are 'fallen'....Fallen from perfect grace and holiness in nature.

Sin is not something committed by us, but as a consequence of being born from Adam we inherit a 'nature' not the 'guilt' or the 'fault'...

Some Catholics do and some Catholics dont.

Why do some Catholics believe that unbaptized will suffer hellfire?

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm

lmaopml

Soul and Form, Catholics believe that Original Sin is a 'stain' on our souls - it's not a 'personal sin'. It's the loss of perfect holiness and sanctifying grace.

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

Soul and Form, Catholics believe that Original Sin is a 'stain' on our souls - it's not a 'personal sin'. It's the loss of perfect holiness and sanctifying grace.

Some Catholics hold the unbaptized are born with Adam's guilt- that is a historical fact that you cannot get around by simply denying. However also some Catholics dont.

lmaopml

Possibly some do - there are lots of us with some strange ideas. Always best to go back to the source and see what the Church says herself, or ask somebody in the know. In saying that there is a vast amount of freedom on many things too, none of us are perfect.

That Sedavacantist site is not a Catholic site - it's a very far right hard core traditionalist movement who obscure teachings with fundamentalist notions...I don't find them helpful.

SoulandForm

Its the historical documents that are from the RCC.

The Council of Trent talks about the guilt of Original Sin.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm

lmaopml wrote: »

Possibly some do - there are lots of us with some strange ideas. Always best to go back to the source and see what the Church says herself, or ask somebody in the know. In saying that there is a vast amount of freedom on many things too, none of us are perfect.

That Sedavacantist site is not a Catholic site - it's a very far right hard core traditionalist movement who obscure teachings with fundamentalist notions...I don't find them helpful.

lmaopml

Well, Trent wasn't giving directives on 'Original Sin' and how to understand it - that wasn't it's purpose. It was a response to the reformation. Also, it doesn't mention 'Original Guilt' - and even if it did, or a Catholic mentions it, they may not be speaking of the same thing that another is.....This is something like what the sedavantists get preoccupied with.

I think the emphasis here on words must be understood in their proper context. That is, in the context of how Catholics understand Original Sin in the Church, and how words like 'guilt' etc. are merely analogeous in their effects in relation to being sons of 'Adam' - born in 'Adam' as such, if you understand me.

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, Trent wasn't giving directives on 'Original Sin' and how to understand it - that wasn't it's purpose. It was a response to the reformation. Also, it doesn't mention 'Original Guilt' - and even if it did, or a Catholic mentions it, they may not be speaking of the same thing that another is.....This is something like what the sedavantists get preoccupied with.

I think the emphasis here on words must be understood in their proper context. That is, in the context of how Catholics understand Original Sin in the Church, and how words like 'guilt' etc. are merely analogeous in their effects in relation to being sons of 'Adam' - born in 'Adam' as such, if you understand me.

You are trolling now. Read the Cathecism of the Council of Trent on the question. Read Bonaventura who is supposedly a Doctor of the Church- or at least show a modicum of maturity.

philologos

If we are taking a wide view of Romans it would be a bad application to state that man is not guilty of sin. It is because of man's guilt of sin that Jesus even stood in our place on the cross and rose again three days later. The courtroom scene in Romans 1 - 4 which explains explicitly that it is because of man's deeds that one stands guilty before God, and as a result it is only by God's unmerited favour through the atoning death of His Son Jesus and His resurrection that we are justified.

Romans 5 - 8 then carries on to deal with assurance, that if you are in Christ, your salvation is secure.

The question resulting from Romans 5:12 is whether or not:
1) We are guilty of the specific sin of Adam,
2) We are guilty as a result of sin and a sinful nature affecting humanity entering the world after Adam's sin.

There's also a hybrid option:
3) We are guilty of the specific sin of Adam, but Adam's sin also affected human nature.

Benny_Cake

SoulandForm wrote: »

You are trolling now. Read the Cathecism of the Council of Trent on the question. Read Bonaventura who is supposedly a Doctor of the Church- or at least show a modicum of maturity.

Mod note: If you see someone trolling (and I can't see how lmaopml was trolling), then report it rather than dealing with it on thread.

Peregrinus

Original sin is a concept found in nearly all Christian traditions. (Possibly in all, but if I say that I’m sure someone will produce a counter-example!) But it’s quite a diverse concept; it’s understood in a number of different ways . And these differences don’t line up neatly with denominational divisions; within particular denomination and traditions, you’ll still find diverse perspectives on orginal sin.

My assumption is that “sin nature” or “inherited sin nature” is a term coined to describe a particular perspective on original sin. If so, my (mild) objection would be that it’s not a particularly helpful term, since it doesn’t point clearly to any one perspective.

Phil tells us that the term is used in discourse about the Fall in his church. Phil’s church, I understand, comes from the Reformed tradition and - correct me if I’m wrong, Phil - would probably accept the language of “total depravity”; the idea that, as a consequence of the Fall, we are incapable of any good or meritorious act of our own; we can only perform such acts through the grace of God.

If so, that would suggest that, in Phil’s church and in others like it, the “sin nature” terminology is seen as an expression of total depravity; the notion that our fallen nature is shot through with sin.

But, in other discourses, “sin nature” seems to be used in a way that opposes it to total depravity. “Sin nature” is used to express the view that because of the Fall, we have a tendency towards sin, but this tendency or weakness does not involve inherited or collective guilt; we are wicked only to the extent that we actually sin.

In other words, I don’t think “sin nature” has a clearly established meaning. Different people may mean different things by the term when they use it which makes it, perhaps, a not terribly useful addition to the language we use to discuss the Fall.

And I note that evangelist talks about “inherited sin nature”, which raises a whole other set of disputes about how exactly the effects of the Fall are transmitted to each of us. There is a view - it has to be said, a minority view - that Fallenness is inherited in the genetic sense, and furthermore is inherited through the male line (which is how Jesus, with no early genetic father, can be fully human and yet not Fallen). By emphasising inherited sin nature, is evangelist evoking this view? Or does he understand inheritance in some other way and, if so, what way? Only he can answer these questions, but it looks increasingly likely that he’s not going to.

SoulandForm

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I note that evangelist talks about “inherited sin nature”, which raises a whole other set of disputes about how exactly the effects of the Fall are transmitted to each of us. There is a view - it has to be said, a minority view - that Fallenness is inherited in the genetic sense, and furthermore is inherited through the male line (which is how Jesus, with no early genetic father, can be fully human and yet not Fallen). By emphasising inherited sin nature, is evangelist evoking this view? Or does he understand inheritance in some other way and, if so, what way? Only he can answer these questions, but it looks increasingly likely that he’s not going to.

Is it a minority view? I thought that this view was accepted by nearly everyone. If Original Sin is not passed on genetically than how is it passed on?

Peregrinus

SoulandForm wrote: »

Is it a minority view? I thought that this view was accepted by nearly everyone. If Original Sin is not passed on genetically than how is it passed on?

Well, what I was pointing to as the minority view was actually the view that OS was passed on genetically, through the male line, in some way connected with the Y chromosome, which I think a lot of christians would see as altogether too materialistic and specific an understanding of the transmission of OS.

But even if we just confine ourselves to “genetically”, while I can’t say that a majority of Christians would reject the view that OS is transmitted genetically, I think a lot would see it as problematic. At the very least, we can’t say that it’s a traditional view, if only because genes were only postulated in the second half of the nineteenth century, and they weren’t conclusively identified until the 1940s.

We get an awful lot of things from our parents and more distant forebears which are not transmitted genetically - for example, language, culture, values and (gasp!) religious beliefs. We can (and do) meaningfully speak of these as an inheritance. (For that matter, we can speak of what we receive under someone’s will as an inheritance, and that’s strictly true; it’s not a figure of speech.)

Over in another thread I’m arguing that Christian anthropology sees our relationships as an intrinsic part of who we are, and I don’t think its a stretch to understand original sin as something which is inescapably transmitted through us by the way we are formed and shaped by our relationships and our culture and our society. It certainly sounds a more plausible account to me than the notion that there’s an “original sin gene”, in the way that there’s a gene for eye colour, or for determining the number of fingers and toes we have.

im invisible

Imagine if we could turn off this original sin gene, its easy if you try, no hell below us...

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

Original sin is a concept found in nearly all Christian traditions. (Possibly in all, but if I say that I’m sure someone will produce a counter-example!) But it’s quite a diverse concept; it’s understood in a number of different ways . And these differences don’t line up neatly with denominational divisions; within particular denomination and traditions, you’ll still find diverse perspectives on orginal sin.

My assumption is that “sin nature” or “inherited sin nature” is a term coined to describe a particular perspective on original sin. If so, my (mild) objection would be that it’s not a particularly helpful term, since it doesn’t point clearly to any one perspective.

Phil tells us that the term is used in discourse about the Fall in his church. Phil’s church, I understand, comes from the Reformed tradition and - correct me if I’m wrong, Phil - would probably accept the language of “total depravity”; the idea that, as a consequence of the Fall, we are incapable of any good or meritorious act of our own; we can only perform such acts through the grace of God.

If so, that would suggest that, in Phil’s church and in others like it, the “sin nature” terminology is seen as an expression of total depravity; the notion that our fallen nature is shot through with sin.

But, in other discourses, “sin nature” seems to be used in a way that opposes it to total depravity. “Sin nature” is used to express the view that because of the Fall, we have a tendency towards sin, but this tendency or weakness does not involve inherited or collective guilt; we are wicked only to the extent that we actually sin.

In other words, I don’t think “sin nature” has a clearly established meaning. Different people may mean different things by the term when they use it which makes it, perhaps, a not terribly useful addition to the language we use to discuss the Fall.

And I note that evangelist talks about “inherited sin nature”, which raises a whole other set of disputes about how exactly the effects of the Fall are transmitted to each of us. There is a view - it has to be said, a minority view - that Fallenness is inherited in the genetic sense, and furthermore is inherited through the male line (which is how Jesus, with no early genetic father, can be fully human and yet not Fallen). By emphasising inherited sin nature, is evangelist evoking this view? Or does he understand inheritance in some other way and, if so, what way? Only he can answer these questions, but it looks increasingly likely that he’s not going to.

In short, you broadly come to a similar conclusion. Namely that as a result of the Fall of Adam that sin entered the world.

As I've mentioned above there are three ways you can understand this. I'm very much of the last. Adam's sin has corrupted man's nature, we inherited a sinful nature from him. However, Adam was also our representative.

Romans 5 presents a picture of the reign of Adam, and the reign of Christ, one could broadly draw two circles to represent the theme of the passage.

Looking at Adam:

Romans 5:12-14 wrote:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

The reason why death affects humanity is because of the sin of Adam according to Romans 5, but Adam is a type of the one who was to come. Namely that Adam points to Jesus.

Looking at Jesus:

Romans 5:15-17 wrote:

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

This is what some call imputed righteousness. As a result of the death of Jesus mentioned in the previous section (5:1-11) and as a result of His resurrection we are saved by His life.

Then the therefore section:

Romans 5:18-21 wrote:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now notice this:
One trespass led to condemnation.
One act of obedience led to many becoming righteous.

This is the reason why I've come to perspective number 3. We clearly have a disposition towards sin and rebellion against God, but it is also because of the one trespass of Adam that we are condemned to begin with.

This I think is what is commonly described as total depravity, and it is the reason why we need Jesus as our Saviour.

Peregrinus

im invisible wrote: »

Imagine if we could turn off this original sin gene, its easy if you try, no hell below us...

Well, it did occur to me that one of the implications of the "genetic inheritance" view is that redemption is just a particular form of gene therapy. Or, alternatively, that gene therapy could potentially make Calvary pointless. Which I think is a conclusion most Christians would recoil from!

philologos

Oh and Peregrinus if I was to sum up, I go to an evangelical Anglican church here.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

Original sin is a concept found in nearly all Christian traditions. (Possibly in all, but if I say that I’m sure someone will produce a counter-example!) But it’s quite a diverse concept; it’s understood in a number of different ways . And these differences don’t line up neatly with denominational divisions; within particular denomination and traditions, you’ll still find diverse perspectives on orginal sin.

My assumption is that “sin nature” or “inherited sin nature” is a term coined to describe a particular perspective on original sin. If so, my (mild) objection would be that it’s not a particularly helpful term, since it doesn’t point clearly to any one perspective.

Phil tells us that the term is used in discourse about the Fall in his church. Phil’s church, I understand, comes from the Reformed tradition and - correct me if I’m wrong, Phil - would probably accept the language of “total depravity”; the idea that, as a consequence of the Fall, we are incapable of any good or meritorious act of our own; we can only perform such acts through the grace of God.

If so, that would suggest that, in Phil’s church and in others like it, the “sin nature” terminology is seen as an expression of total depravity; the notion that our fallen nature is shot through with sin.

But, in other discourses, “sin nature” seems to be used in a way that opposes it to total depravity. “Sin nature” is used to express the view that because of the Fall, we have a tendency towards sin, but this tendency or weakness does not involve inherited or collective guilt; we are wicked only to the extent that we actually sin.

In other words, I don’t think “sin nature” has a clearly established meaning. Different people may mean different things by the term when they use it which makes it, perhaps, a not terribly useful addition to the language we use to discuss the Fall.

^^ Great Post. This exactly. I think we sometimes take for granted when we use the same words that we're saying the exact same thing. I think you are right, it will all stem on how our Christian traditions view what Original Sin is firstly, and also it's effects.

I guess this is why we would have varying opinions on Baptism from the get go..

evangelist

Sorry for my late reply.

A year ago, a Moderator of an American forum was very strong that original sin meant something
quite different than inherited sin nature, but I just cannot remember his reasoning.
He did make it clear though that what I was (and am) talking about was man's inherited sin nature.

I was curious to see where you people stood on the subject.

And if there are Christians here who do not believe this doctrine ...
I feel they should read the 1+ pages of Scriptures that I have ready.

This includes the fact that when Noah stepped off the Ark, he built an altar to the Lord,
who then said that man's heart is evil from his youth ... the sin nature was still there
... da flood didn't wash it away ... lol.

Would anyone like to see ALL of the evidence?

lmaopml

I think we call it 'Concupiscence' Evangelist - However, Peregrinus is right imo, not everybody will understand that term in exactly the same way, some may be very very similar but as I say because they are not exactly the same, it can lead to other areas of Christian theology that will be at variance slightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence