The Fallacy of the Term "Sinful Nature."

 

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

...were by nature the children of wrath.....

The word nature appears 12 times in the New Testament alone.

There is a false doctrine, a doctrine of devils, conceived early in church history borrowed from the Greeks. It is the doctrine of "sinful nature." It's a doctrine Calvin utilized as "Total Depravity." It's a doctrine of devils. It's a false concept that men are born with a sinful nature. That men are born without any of the image of God left, that they exist totally in the image of Adam.

This doctrine teaches that total depravity is depravity of will as well as the depravity of substance, that is, it's taught that man is depraved in his will to the point where he cannot choose good. He cannot decide to do good. He cannot believe the gospel, that one cannot believe until God regenerates him. This is the accepted Calvinist teaching.

This teaching about the sinful nature (the Bible never speaks of), has been handed down for centuries where it originated with Origen and St. Augustine and is now propagated in false bibles just as well. The NIV has finally managed to let their interpretation teach us something that is foreign to Scripture. ( see NIV chapter 8 where it uses the term sinful nature.)

The reason they believe that is they teach that we have a nature, that within itself, is sinful, totally depraved and incapable of doing anything except evil and no other capability. No capability at all for good. They say because of the sin of Adam you and I are damned at birth. This is absurd.

The verse before us is the heart of the teaching. Commentators will give 3 verses for this teaching and this verse is the main one.

I think it would be helpful to look up some of these passages dealing with nature in them.

Rom. 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" We know that lesbian activity is a sin. It's just as much a sin like fornication and adultery is a sin. It's sin of the flesh. It says the women engaged in this activity changed the natural use of the woman into that which is against nature. Did this sinful act spring from a sinful nature, or was the act against nature? What did it say? It said it was against nature.

Folks, if two women have sinful natures, then the sinful act would not be against nature, it would be a flaw of nature. How can anyone take a passage like this and tell us homosexuality is just our nature? People who teach that doctrine don't believe their own doctrine. For instance, let a queer try and take their son and see if he thinks that person is acting according to nature. He would call that guy a pervert. Why would he think he's a pervert? Because he thinks the act of sodomy is a perversion of nature. Is he right? He would be absolutely right. Why doesn't it somehow filter down into his theology? It is interesting that some people can hold this theology separate from what they believe.

Rom. 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" Here's a man who has never had the Bible. He doesn't know anything about the law. He looks at creation and responds to it according to his understanding and he also looks at what's within him, and when he follows his conscience within and the revelations of nature without the law, it said he does by nature the things contained in the law of God. This heathen man who has no Bible, all he has is his own conscience and creation around him, just does what is and what's natural, and what's natural is according to the law of God, not according to something evil, twisted, and perverted.

That's the second use of the word nature. Let's continue.

1 Cor. 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? This is talking about long hair and short hair; that men should have short hair and women long hair. He appeals not only to the law of God, he appeals to nature itself. "Doth not even nature itself teach you..." Nature teaches that it's a shame . Now, if everything about our nature was sinful and we turned to our nature for teaching, it would always teach us the wrong thing! It would always teach us something sinful. That's not Bible teaching.

Gal. 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles Now, if people did have sinful natures, he said those that are Jews by nature are not sinners of the Gentiles. So we do have a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile regarding nature. Is he saying that Gentiles have a sinful nature and Jews don't? Well, that's not what it says. When he's talking about Jews by nature, he's not talking about the human nature as the term is usually used, but he just means by created order, he's a Jew instead of a Gentile.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Some people use this passage to teach that we have two natures. You partake on that divine nature believing the promise of God, and you partake of it piece by piece, bit by bit, or we by faith claim what Jesus Christ has done. In order for this verse to be the support for the idea that when we are born again we receive the nature of Christ and then have an old nature and a new nature, one would have to show from the passage that one receives this nature at new birth in its entirety. That is not the case. The passage teaches that we partake of the divine nature to the degree that we believe and appropriate and apply the promise of God to our life, which means at the end of our life an appropriation of the divine nature will amount to very little...far from two natures.

This idea if two natures also stems from the book of Romans which the Bible does not even suggest or imply we have two natures or suffer two natures. We add terms that are not Biblical. In the book of Romans it speaks of the old man and the new man, and says nothing or imply anything about a person suffering from an old nature and a new nature. Either you are a low down forsaken sinner dead in your trespasses and sins or you are a new creature in Christ. If you haven't come to the cross and all it entails, then you are not crucified with Christ and nothing is new. (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:17).

Webster defines nature as: The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is; as the nature of the soul; the nature of blood; the nature of a fluid; the nature of plants, or of a metal; the nature of a circle or an angle. When we speak of the nature of man, we understand the peculiar constitution of his body or mind, or the qualities of the species which distinguish him from other animals. When we speak of the nature of a man, or an individual of the race, we mean his particular qualities or constitution; either the peculiar temperament of his body, or the affections of his mind, his natural appetites, passions, disposition or temper. So of irrational animals.

There is a nature of man, the nature of blood, the nature of plants, the nature of a circle or an angle.

This may be shocking, but the human being does not have a nature. God doesn't have a nature. Nothing that exist has a nature. The concept of a nature as an entity does not exist. For instance, if you pick up a song book, the nature of the song book is not found on a certain page. It's not in the cover or the binding. The nature of the song book is cloth on the cover made out of cotton. The paper inside is made out of part cotton and part wood chips, along with some glues for the binding and ink made out of some dyes from plants. It's size is 8x5x5...that is the nature of that book. The central qualities of the book that makes it what it is and differentiates it from a piece of 1 inch PVC pipe made out of some other material. The nature of the PVC pipe is not found inside of it. The nature of the pipe doesn't exist. It's just a word we use to define the essential qualities, the essence, the attributes of the pipe.

The song book doesn't have a nature in the sense of possessing one. If it has a nature on page 371, then could we not add another nature on page 482? So we open it up and say it has two natures, but it would be absurd to define anything as having two natures. It would be a contradiction of terms. One will say this is the nature of the book, and the other will say, no, this is the nature of it. It is contradiction to the first one. Something can't have two natures. It's an impossibility...that's like saying it has 2 definitions. We've heard the theological terms so long that we can't think sanely any longer.

You and I do not have a nature. We have a heart, we have a mind, which is metaphysical. Your brain is physical, your mind is metaphysical, it's an entity, but it's a metaphysical entity. You have a spirit. Your spirit is not physical, it's also metaphysical, but it's an entity, it's reality. You are these things, but you don't have a nature. In other words, if someone were to do an autopsy on you, where would the nature be? You would say, "Well, it's not in the body, its in the soul." Where in the soul is it? Is it in the mind? What if you lose your mind, you lost your nature? Is it in the emotions? Where is the nature? Think about it! It's not there. Nature is a word that would define everything about you. There's the physical nature, the essence of what you are physically to the essence of what you are spiritually, but as a being, nature is what you are. It's not something you can get rid of. It's not some object or tangible something you can lose or gain or have 2 or 3 of them. It's just a word that is used to describe the natural created order of a thing.

Where does anything get its nature? From its Creator. The very act of making something gives it what we call nature. If God creates something this big, then the nature of it is that big. If God creates something spongy, then the nature of that is spongy. If it's liquid, that's the nature of it....by creation that's automatically the nature of it. You don't create it and then give it a nature. Whatever it is, when it's made, that's its nature. If you change the nature of it, what would you have to do to it? You would have to recreate it.

We received our nature, our essence, our natural self, at the time God created us in the Garden of Eden. He created man from the dust of the ground. He was made out of the natural elements of planet earth. God breathed in him the breath of life. He got some of the divine person inside and he became a living soul, so we are 2 things...(1. We have our physical tangible bodies and (2. A metaphysical being.....eternal soul. That's our nature. The soul is not something you possess, it is you. We have a soul and that soul is made up of a mind, will, and emotions (triune). The soul is just like God's soul....the mind, will, and emotions. In the image of God we are made (Gen. 1:26).

Now, when Adam learned to speak a language, did his nature change? No. When Adam bathed, did his nature change? When he cut his hair or nails, did his nature change? When he lost a tooth, did his nature change? No. Now the substance changed, but his nature is what God created. What about when Adam had his first child? Did his nature change? His offspring, was their nature changed? No. Everyone after Adam is born in the likeness and image of Adam....earthy (Adam did not have a heavenly body, he had an earthy body, made from the earth. [1 Cor. 15:47-48]). What about when Adam partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and ate it, did his nature change? Who changed it? Who can change nature of a man? No one but God, the Creator of man.

We can change the nature of a building, but we cannot change the nature of man. For Adam to have his nature changed when he sinned, he would have had to go back to the drawing board. God didn't do that. But you say, "When he sinned, he fell from God." Yes, he fell from his relationship to God. He entered into a state of rebellion, he entered into a state of sin, he entered into a state of disobedience. Did his nature change? What nature? God would have to change either his mind, his emotions, his soul, his body, something would have had to change his nature.

Now when someone tells us we have a sinful nature, that we got it from Adam, what they are telling us is that we have inherited a depravity that causes us to sin naturally, to naturally sin and not be able to do anything else. If that's the case, a little child is born with a sinful nature. He is damned at birth and deserves Hell. Can you imagine one of those little infants having a sinful nature? You're going to let it grow up a sinful nature? Every part of that child is sinful?

Sinful nature has to start somewhere. To the Calvinists it starts at birth. It's easy to get an 18 year old running around raping, stealing, and fighting and say he's got a sinful nature, but he always wasn't like that. There was a time he sat on his mama's lap. When did he get that sinful nature? And if he's got it, why are you blaming him? Why are you putting him in jail? Why do you have programs to reform him? Why do we ask him to repent and believe the gospel? A Calvinist will say we do that as a matter of form because God's going to save a few of them and He's going to regenerate them and make them believe and repent. This is crazy. If we are not full Calvinists, we have no right to hold on to the sinful nature position.

If this child has the sinful nature and he's damned because of it, who's fault is it that he's wicked? It can be non other than his Creator's fault. He was created to be wicked. How then can we blame the 18 year old? How can we accuse a dog for not flying? How can we accuse a rabbit of immorality for having 14 young ones out of wedlock? You would say, of course not, we don't! Why? Because he's doing what is according to this nature. Then what makes it wrong for another person to have a child out of wedlock? Because you say they shouldn't do it, that's wrong. You say it's wrong for people to copulate with animals because you say that's perverted. Perverted by what? What's the nature, what God made? Are we going to hold that sinner to the natural, what God made to truth? Do you think in that sinner's mind he ought to know not to copulate with animals? Is that in his heart? Does he have guilt when he does it? Yes. Is he violating his nature? Yes. Does he feel shame at first? Yes. It would take a long time to wipe away his shame, and for others the shame is always there. Most people feel ashamed most of their life. They'll hide it, it's not something to write home and tell mother, they won't publicize it. They feel shame. Why? Because they're violating this nature. They violate your nature and they know many will shame them. They'll point their finger at that guy and say you ought not to do that, yet they do it. It's not a testimony of their sinful nature, but the exact opposite. A nature given by God , they go against nature and are embarrassed, ashamed, and guilty when that sins occurs.

We ought to look up all the verses that have to do about nature. If you don't agree with what I just said, then just blame it on my sinful nature.

_________________________________________________________

Continue

A Sinful Nature?