Born in Sin with sin nature or not?

Some say yes some say No. How could this be. 2 views one word. Why would God make the bible not clear on this subject. I have searched out both views and I am leaning towards a Yes but I could be wrong also. It's not 100% as far as I can see.

I listen to a teaching from Jesse Morelle called the false doctrine of original sin. That did not help at all. Made me think opposite not that what he was saying was false but maybe confused not very clear.

Listen to some other that preach Sin nature but haven't had a real strong revelation of it yet, i'm still leaning towards this way but maybe only 85% sure and that's not enough...
What would preachers like zac poonen, carter conlon, leonard ravenhill be believing or believed on this issue?

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=19312&commentView=itemComments]Exceeding Sinfulness Of Sin by Leonard Ravenhill[/url]

At first glance this doesn’t seem to matter whether one believes that we all inherit a sin nature or become one by our own desires. It does matter and is extremely important to have this doctrine settled, for it can affect numerous other areas of teaching and actually affect our walk.

What does this logically mean if we are not born with a sinful nature, inclined to sin? It means that we are born sinless.

If their is no sin nature passed on then we have the potential to be perfect by not doing any wrong. But there is no one who can do this as Paul states

Rom 3:10: "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one.

If it were true that none of us are born sinful then each one of us is being tested all over again, just like Adam to see if we will fail. The Bible says that, "The wages of sin is death." Sin is first and then the consequence is the payoff. Romans 5:18 -19 says, "through one man's trespass, judgment came to all men, for by one man's disobedience all were made sinners." This Scripture clearly shows sin is inherited through his (Adam's) disobedience, not ours. The bible says we are all under the condemnation of sin. The Bible speaks of sin not as a biological flaw but a spiritual infection that is transmitted through the reproductive cycle finding itself in all humans corrupting their nature. Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." If one entertains the though that they are born without sin, then they have the glory of God. The only one who has the glory of God as their nature is God.

One can be a sinner without showing any actions outwardly. Sin is being selfish, one can have a wrong attitude and desires contrary to God and not act upon it. Jesus said to have these thoughts in our heart is still sin even if not done outwardly. He stated in the sermon of the mount that one did not just break the law from their outward actions but it started on the inside. What made one a transgressor of the law is the intent of our heart. Even if one did not commit the physical act of murder, if they harbored hatred toward someone in their heart this is where sin begins. They have already broken the law and are guilty.

What the teaching of no original sin is saying is that no one dies spiritually until they sin. This means everyone is born innocent (perfect), just like Adam was made, just like Jesus, without ever having a virgin birth. The root of the problem is their interpretation of sin. Sin entered the world through one man (Rom. 5:12-21). The definition of sin varies. Not only does it mean "to miss the mark" of perfection of God's goal, but it also carries the concept of separation from God, which we all share in. Paul's point is that Adam's sin was a representative act and all his posterity has reckoned to their account having sinned in him. Adam was the natural headship of the human race. From him flows man's fallen nature, passed on through the bloodline (the life is in the blood). Only Adam became a sinner by sinning. The sin nature affects the immaterial part of man, which consequently affects our outward actions. consequently affects our outward actions.

The view of man being born without original sin is not new but goes back to 400 A.D., where Pelagian taught that there was no such thing as original sin.

He taught that Adam's sin affected only himself, that every soul is created innocent and only personal sins are imputed. So it was possible, according to this view to live a life without sin. Man having absolute freedom to choose good by his will. Then it also becomes possible to be saved apart from the Gospel. Augustine challenged the view that Pelagius promoted in the 5th century. Pelagius saw sin to be basically a outward work of man, who had the freedom to choose to sin or not to sin.

Augustine appealed to the overall teaching of scripture. Stating that sin incapacitated man from doing good.

He stated that we are born sinners and actually lack the power to do good. Yet we all choose bad over good and in so doing are held accountable for our actions. Augustine gave a story of a man who abstained from food that was necessary for his health and became so weak that he could no longer eat at all. While he was a human being created in having a obligation to eat to keep himself in good health, he no longer was able to do so. So Augustine argued humanity through Adam as the federal head of the human race became incapacitated toward God unable to obey and love him which was the very purpose we created.

He stated that we are born sinners and actually lack the power to do good. Yet we all choose bad over good and in so doing are held accountable for our actions. Augustine gave a story of a man who abstained from food that was necessary for his health and became so weak that he could no longer eat at all. While he was a human being created in having a obligation to eat to keep himself in good health, he no longer was able to do so. So Augustine argued humanity through Adam as the federal head of the human race became incapacitated toward God unable to obey and love him which was the very purpose we created. Pelagius held the view that one could raise themselves by their own effort toward God and that grace is a reward for our own human virtue. Augustine centered his argument around the fact that the fallen race of mankind is helpless to do any good until grace falls upon him. When gods grace touches an individuals life he is then able to move toward God and do good that is required of him. The concept of Augustine became known in reform theology as total depravity. Pelagius view was rejected and called heresy then, and should certainly be rejected today, also.

Psalm 51:5 is clear. Regarding those who are so vexed by the text that they must accuse David's mother of sin, here are John Gill's words:

2. It is objected,that David here speaks not of his own, but of his mother’s sin, and a very broad intimation is given, that this was the sin of adultery; and, indeed, if he was conceived in a sin of his mother’s, what else could it be? This shows, that these men are grievously pinched with this text, and miserably put to their shifts, to betake themselves to such an interpretation, at the expense of the character of an innocent person, of whom there is not the least suggestion of this kind in the sacred writings; but on the contrary, she is represented as a religious person. David valued himself upon his being related to her, and pleads, that he might be regarded by the Lord for her sake (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). [b][u]Moreover, had this been the case, David must have been excluded from entrance into the congregation of the Lord; for there was a standing law (Deut. 23:2). in Israel, which forbade a bastard to enter there until the tenth generation; whereas it is certain, that David often went into the house of God with company, where he enjoyed much spiritual pleasure and delight (Ps. 43:4; 55:14; 122:1; Ps. 63:1, 2; Ps. 84:1, 10).[/u][/b] Once more, it is beside David’s scope and design to expose the sins of others, much less his own parents, whilst he is confessing and lamenting his own; and to what purpose should he mention theirs, especially if he himself was not affected by them, and did not derive corrupt nature from them? To say no more, the particle b, in, relates not to his mother, but to himself; it is not said, my mother in sin, that is, being in sin, or through sin, conceived me; but, my mother conceived me in sin, that is, as soon as I was conceived in the womb, and the mass of human nature was shaped and quickened; or as soon as soul and body were united together, sin was in me, and I was in sin, or became a sinful creature. Some, who do not run this length, yet say, that the sin and iniquity in which David was conceived and shapen, was the sinfulness of his parents, in the acts of begetting and conceiving him, though in lawful wedlock. But this cannot be true; since tire propagation of the human species, by natural generation, is a principle of nature implanted by God him-serf, and therefore cannot be sinful; and is agreeable to the first law of nature, given to man in a state of innocence, be fruitful and multiply. Marriage was instituted by God in paradise, and in all ages has been honorable in all, when the bed is undefiled. Besides, one of the words here used, translated shapen, is of the passive form, and designs something in which both David and his parents were entirely passive, and means no other than that amazing and surprising act of formation he so much admires in Psalm 139:13-16. Others interpret these words of his mother’s conceiving him [i]in profluviis[/i], which usually produces a body impure, ill tempered, and subject to evil passions. The Jews and Isidore are referred to for this sense of them, though the former, as far as I have been able to observe, say nothing of 2:14. Sol. Jarchi, R. David Kimchi, R. Aben Ezra, and R. Abendana, understand the words of the corruption of nature in man as soon as he is born. And as for Isidore, both elder and younger understand these words of original sin, in which David and all men are involved. However, nothing of this nature can be concluded from the sacred Scriptures concerning David, but rather the reverse; since he is taken notice of, as no other man is excepting Moses, for his being comely, ruddy, of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to (1 Sam. 16:12, 18); and so far from having an unclean body of an ill temperament, or subject to bad qualities.

I careful study of history will show that the majority orthodox view on this subject passed down through the church, including the reformation traditions is that man is born into the curse of Adam. Whether we call this 'original sin' or not does not matter.

Whether you call it 'human nature' or 'total depravity' almost every Christian that has lived before our current generation has believed that man has been born with a fallen nature that is utterly sinful. The bible bears witness to this.

Romans 3:10-18 says,
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 3:23 sums this up by saying, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Scripture bears witness that all mankind is naturally inclined towards sin because of the fall. No one, besides our Lord Jesus Christ has lived a sinless life. We are all under the curse of Adam's original sin until we come under the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

TaylorOtwell Wrote:
Psalm 51:5 is clear. Regarding those who are so vexed by the text that they must accuse David's mother of sin, here are John Gill's words:

[b]Psalm 51:3[/b] For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
[b]:4[/b] Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight: that you might be justified when you speak, and be blameless when you judge.
[b]:[/b] Behold, I was born this way, It is my nature to sin, I couldn't hepl it.

Fact is, David was so emotional, he wasn't trying to be doctrinal, all he meant was that his parents were sinners & he was just adding to the lot.

iansmith wrote:
Romans 3:23 sums this up by saying, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Scripture bears witness that all mankind is naturally inclined towards sin because of the fall.

You may wonder, what is it that causes us to choose our "want" or we may call them our affections toward either good or bad?

It starts when we are children; there is a time when a child does not know to choose between good or evil (Isa 7:16); however, as we mature, our assessment of right & wrong becomes clearer as conscience will confirm what is right or wrong(Rom 2:14-15).

Therefore, that which influences us to choose what we put our affections on, are the values that we have assembled using our conscience [b]or[/b] ignoring our conscience.

That which makes our values are the things which are important to us. The things which become important to us are our evaluation of the Eternal compared to the temporal.

If we life for this life only, well then...
However, if we are living for the next life, which is eternal, well then...
The knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10, Prov 1:7; 9:10).

Our own affections will influence, however, they do not cause our individual choices that we make.
The choice that we make usually follows our affections but our affections do not necessitate the decision.

Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than God, you may not consistently do things that please Him.
Your decisions strongly tend toward your affections so that you will to do what you have favor towards.

No one, besides our Lord Jesus Christ has lived a sinless life.

We are all under the curse of Adam's original sin until we come under the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

Anything which [b]causes[/b] you to sin other than you choosing to sin lets you off the hook of your guilt.
If your choice to sin is caused by anything other than you wanted to, then you have an excuse.
See my reason above on why we may choose the thing we do.

Many times the Scriptures likens man to plants which bear fruit. Mankind has a nature to love, bear fruit & mature in it; not a nature of sin.

Our fruit, weather sin or righteousness comes from what choose to do of our own volition, being influenced by what we love or what we put our affections on.

The reason that one bears the fruit of sin is because he continues on choosing to act upon what they love &/or desire which the law or his conscience has shown to be unlawful more than the ONE who made the law.

Now, If you love the ONE who can deliver you from sin more than sin, you wouldn't tend to choose to sin.

I know scripture supports a sin nature but even simple observation prove sin nature without a doubt.

Have you ever had children? Do you have to each a child to lie or to tell the truth. Do you have to teach a baby to be selfish or to share? Do you have to teach a baby to hit or to be nice? and on and on - my wife and I ran a day care for 5 years and had children from newborn and up from every different home life you could image from devote God fearing Christians, Hindus to flat out atheist and everything in between and sin nature was crystal clear across the board. From the observation of over a 100 babies and children you couldn't convince me in a million years that we don't have sin nature - go work in the nursery at church for a couple of weeks and the case will be settled.

God bless,

Patrick
www.jonahproject.org

It starts when we are children; there is a time when a child does not know to choose between good or evil

you are right - they naturally choose evil 100% of the time unless they are taught differently - every run across a 1 or 2 year old who has not been taught to be good?!?! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! They are naturally the most selfish and sinful creatures on the face of the earth - like I said - go work in the church nursery for a month and then report back - both Scripture and nature prove original sin.

God bless,

Patrick
www.jonahproject.org

All he meant was that his parents were sinners & he was just adding to the lot.

I agree. He was adding to the lot from his very birth! "I was brought forth in iniquity..."

No, mankind is naturally inclined towards what they want.

Yes, and if mankind is inclined towards what they want... since they do not want God they are sinners!

"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." -Romans 5:8

If by our very nature we are inclined towards what we want... and we do not want God... we are sinners.

Christisking wrote:
I know scripture supports a sin nature...
...both Scripture and nature prove original sin.

Have you ever had children? Do you have to each a child to lie or to tell the truth.

Adam & Even sinned. Does that prove they had a sin nature?
Lucifer sin. Does that prove that he had a sin nature?

You all seem to you the fact that mankind sins as proofe of this so called sin nature.
If the fact that we sin proves it, then Adam & Eve & Lucife also had a sin nature.

You must use something other that the fact that we sin to prove sin nature.

From the observation of over a 100 babies and children you couldn't convince me in a million years that we don't have sin nature - go work in the nursery at church for a couple of weeks and the case will be settled.

To say that we are born with a "sin nature", you must be assuming that an infant already understands the concept of sin and/or is accountable for its own moral actions.

Childeren do not diliberatly do that which they know is wrong for the purpose of doing wrong.
Children are yet developing, learning & testing their world around them.
If you accuse children of sin, you are as ignorant as you say they are sinful.

It starts when we are children; there is a time when a child does not know to choose between good or evil

You are right - they naturally choose evil 100% of the time unless they are taught differently

The problem here is the definition of sin.

Sin must be willful, intentional, volitional choice do do that which you know is wrong in order to make one culpable It must be this so that he may be convicted.
If I didn't choose to sin, I am not culpable.
If I didn't choose to sin, how can you convict me of condemnation?

If I am caused to sin other than by my own choice, I can not be convicted with guilt, for I would have an excuse.
Why did I sin?
I was born this way, It is my nature to sin, I couldn't hepl it.

Please, lets start making sense.
You all need to answer the question that asks:
How are we culpable if we have a sin nature?

very run across a 1 or 2 year old who has not been taught to be good?!?! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! They are naturally the most selfish and sinful creatures on the face of the earth

That conscience is part of our good nature which influences us to do good.

The fact is that people corrupt their [b]own[/b] way (Gen 6:12), doing that which they [b]know is wrong[/b] (Rom 1:19-20); searing their conscience as with a hot iron so to forget God to ease themselves of their own condemnation.

Fact is, if we truly had a so called "sin nature" we would have an excuse before God for our sin.

[b]Try this:[/b]
Just try to convict your naighbor of Adam's guilt.
He will laugh in your face.
Now convict him of his own guilt, then you will have his attention.

iansmith wrote:
and if mankind is inclined towards what they want... since they do not want God they are sinners!

"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." -Romans 5:8

If by our very nature we are inclined towards what we want... and we do not want God... we are sinners.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band. A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always(Acts 10:1-2):
He wanted God, yet he was unsaved.
According to you, he wasn't a sinner.

TaylorOtwell said:
I agree. He was adding to the lot from his very birth! "I was brought forth in iniquity..."

David was so emotional, he wasn't trying to be doctrinal.
Stop using that as Doctrine.
He was adding to the lot from when he commited adultry.

Tell me how we are culpable for sin if sin is unavoidable, inevitable, and we must sin by necessity of our nature?

Okay, but their are many people who actually do want God.

The Word of God speaks clearly: "There is none that understandeth, [b]there is none that seeketh after God[/b]." -Romans 3:11

The Word also says, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." -Jeremiah 29:13

How do we reconcile these seemingly incompatible bible verses. An atheist would look at this and say something to the effect, "your scriptures contradict themselves, this is proof that your God is fake." But we know that there must be a way to reconcile these scriptures in light of what we know of the Father.

I believe that Paul does show how these seemingly contradictory acts can be brought together in his sermon to the Athenians in Acts 17:27, "[b]God did this so that men would seek him[/b] and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

God acted first! Man does not by his nature seek after God, that much is made clear in the scriptures... the Lord has to work in the heart of a man to prompt him to seek Him. In fact the verse before, in Acts 17:26 spells out how God ordains our circumstances to prompt us to seek after him!

Understanding God's sovereignty only makes his love for us all that more precious. He was the one who stepped towards us, even when we were running away from him and headlong into our own ruin. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -Romans 5:8

iansmith said:
The Word of God speaks clearly: "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -Romans 3:11

In other words, Both [b]groups[/b] of the Jews and Greeks are all under sin [b]by proof of the law[/b].

Both [b]groups[/b] of the Jews and Greeks do not seeketh after God.

Logic wrote:
No, mankind is naturally inclined towards what they want.

Yes we are inclined to what we want because are self-minded.

In God's Kingdom:- Jesus is Lord
In Satan's Kingdom:- Self is Lord.

The essence of sin is ‘selfishness’ inclined towards want we want or living independently of God (Isa 53:6 2 Cor 5:15).

Logic wrote:
The curse of Adam's original sin is that we all physically die because we are cut off from the Tree of Life. Nothing more.

That's complete nonsense, so you are saying that we are not cut of from God only the tree of life, so that means our heart would be pure and aware of God when we are born.

Matthew 5:8 Jesus said, Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Our fruit, weather sin or righteousness comes from what choose to do of our own volition, being influenced by what we love or what we put our affections on.

So if we are born with a clean Heart and can see God and are fully are aware of his majesty and Holiness we would then pour our love on him just because of who he is then we would naturally chose the right thing to do.....

The truth is we are not aware of God, we are born lost, blind, with no knowledge of God, with a heart that's wicked and sets it's affections on what it wants.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it.

Matthew 15:19-20, Jesus said: out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man.

The heart is the problem. Your heart is evil, mean, wicked, and nasty. It is defiled. It is corrupt. It is contaminated.

We are born inclined towards we want.

Did you actually read what I posted? David was so emotional, he wasn't trying to be doctrinal. Stop using that as Doctrine. He was adding to the lot from when he commited adultry. Tell me how we are culpable for sin if sin is unavoidable, inevitable, and we must sin by necessity of our nature?

Logic,

You again demonstrate your failure reckon with the Scripture. It is simply an innovation you bring to the text that he "wasn't trying to be doctrinal".

Paul states that all Scripture is profitable for "doctrine". David says he was "brought forth in iniquity". He needed a Savior from birth!

Okay, but their are many people who actually do want God. There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band. A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always(Acts 10:1-2): He wanted God, yet he was unsaved. According to you, he wasn't a sinner.

God begins drawing people to Himself before they even hear the Gospel.

Logic,

Scripture does not support a sin nature, Show me one verse.

Someone already did in Psalm 51:5: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." You can not say that you can't get a doctrine from this because 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
So ALL Scripture can be used for doctrine.

Fact is, if we truly had a so called "sin nature" we would have an excuse before God for our sin.

I actually find Isaiah 7:16 to prove sin nature. because it says: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," It's sounds like the child doesn't know to refuse EVIL. So he is actually choosing the evil rather than the good because he can't choose the good without Christ.

To say that we are born with a "sin nature", you must be assuming that an infant wants to sin.
However, as an infant, one does not understand sin and therefore cannot want to sin.
To say that we are born with a "sin nature", you must be assuming that an infant already understands the concept of sin and/or is accountable for its own moral actions.

Just because you don't understand that something is a sin doesn't mean you can't want to sin. Example: say someone doesn't know that having sex out side of marriage is a sin. But they WANT to have sex before marriage. They are by definition wanting to sin, even if they don't know it's a sin. GOD doesn't forget that it's a sin. So if the person does have sex outside of marriage, but doesn't understand that it is a sin, is he then sinning? I would say yes, because sooner or later he will feel guilty even if he doesn't know it was a sin.

If there is no sin nature how do you reconcile Romans 8?
For example Romans 8:12-14 "Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."
If there is no sin nature why did Paul always talk about us warring against the sin nature (or flesh)? Why did he tell us to put off the old nature and put on the new if there wasn't/isn't a "old nature" to put off?
How do you explain our bent or leaning towards sin if there is no sin nature? If we are born morally neutral then shouldn't it be just as easy to choose good as it is evil? But it is easier to choose to do evil than good if God hasn't regenerated your heart. So how do we account for that?

In Christ,
Veronica