What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

Marcia,

You posted good questions that I will try to address in order to explain myself more clearly. Thank you for the clear statements that can be addressed. I enjoy the challenge of explaining something that has helped me understand scripture. I sadly am not able to explain it as clearly as I would like. I do this hoping to help others as well as refining my own understanding.

Although it may have appeared so, I don't let my children define my "Bible" terms but neither do I merely let the Bible do it. I am sure you don't either. I may sounds like I let my kids be my dictionary, but my point is really that I do not let theologians do it. I think Paul used words that would make sense to people who do not have extensive education. We have come to the point of needing extensive education in order to sort out all the opinions and how they were arrived at.

I don't think there are "Bible" terms anyway. The Bible was written using languages that everybody understood. Examples include baptism, repent, impute, etc. These were every day words that normal people would have understood.

The context of where I get the meaning of flesh and death is both broad and narrow. It is consistent, is not needed to be applied haphazardly, and makes Romans understandable.

For example the context of theRomans passages you quote say nothing to me about death being separation from God nor the flesh being a sinful nature. The wages of sin is physical. To say that it is more than that needs strong support that I do not see.

The sinful nature doctrine and the notion that death is separation from God makes no sense to me in the context of Romans. However, the terms physical death and flesh do. Paul would be guilty of bouncing back and forth between death being physical and spiritual a number of times in chapter 6 alone. Add to that chapters 7 and 8 and Romans would be considered a very difficult book. He would not create this confusion on purpose since there are words for sinful, nature and separation that would have been much better.

The advocates of these positions say that when Adam sinned he was immediately spiritually dead, separated from God, and that his flesh was now corruptible. What would have been the reason God would have kicked him out of the Garden if these were true? It only makes sense that Adam needed access to the Tree of Life to avoid corruption and ultimately death. That penalty of death has been required ever since and has never once been a sinful nature imposed upon innocent offspring.

Adam needed a savior because he now had knowledge of good and evil with the death sentence upon him. Knowing he was a lost sinner and living eternally in that condition would have been miserable. Being just, God required death for sin. Adam was warned of this penalty but chose it without this thing called a sinful nature. Being merciful this just God made a system to atone for Adam's situation.

 

Have you ever heard of doing a word study? The same word can mean different things in different contexts. This is true in every language. In any book - not just the Bible - a word can mean different things. One has to go beyond seeing a word as meaning the same thing if the context dictates differently.

You're talking about the English words. You don't know what the Greek words are, do you? Greek is a different language. It's not a special or mystical language - I'll be the first to say that! -- but it's important to realize that the translations are not inspired, which is why we see different renderings of the same Greek words/phrase sometimes. We need to take all of this in account.

For example: Rom. 5:17:
NET ©For if, by the transgression of the one man, 1 death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
NIV ©
biblegateway Rom 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
NASB ©
biblegateway Rom 5:17
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
NLT ©
biblegateway Rom 5:17
The sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over us, but all who receive God’s wonderful, gracious gift of righteousness will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
MSG ©
biblegateway Rom 5:17
If death got the upper hand through one man's wrongdoing, can you imagine the breathtaking recovery life makes, sovereign life, in those who grasp with both hands this wildly extravagant life-gift, this grand setting-everything-right, that the one man Jesus Christ provides?
BBE ©
SABDAweb Rom 5:17
For, if by the wrongdoing of one, death was ruling through the one, much more will those to whom has come the wealth of grace and the giving of righteousness, be ruling in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.
NRSV ©
bibleoremusRom 5:17
If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
NKJV ©
biblegateway Rom 5:17
For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

What does death mean in the bible? It means physical death and eternal separation from God.

From Rev. 20:

10And (AF)the devil who (AG)deceived them was thrown into the (AH)lake of fire and brimstone, where the (AI)beast and the (AJ)false prophet are also; and they will be (AK)tormented day and night forever and ever. 11Then I saw a great white (AL)throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence (AM)earth and heaven fled away, and (AN)no place was found for them.

12And I saw the dead, the (AO)great and the small, standing before the throne, and (AP)books were opened; and another book was opened, which is (AQ)the book of life; and the dead (AR)were judged from the things which were written in the books, (AS)according to their deeds.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and (AT)death and Hades (AU)gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them (AV)according to their deeds. 14Then (AW)death and Hades were thrown into (AX)the lake of fire This is the (AY)second death, the lake of fire.

 

I had to do this in 2 parts - I got a message my post was over the word limit.

The doctrine of death as separation from God comes from other parts of the bible.

When Adam sinned, assuming he did die spiritually immediately, being kicked out the Garden is so he would not live forever in a state of decay and/or illness in his fallen body. It was actually an act of mercy from this viewpoint.

So you deny that people are born with a sin nature? What is your religion?

I agree Adam did not have a sin nature, but by sinning, he was cursed and from then on, everyone was born with a sin nature. Sin only got worse as we see from Cain killing Abel.

 

You list "non-denominational" on your profile and give no church name. What religion are you? Why hide it?

 

Is there something wrong with "non-denominational"? If I am correct that was one of the choices. I would have chosen "anti-denominational" if it we available but the choice I made best describes me.

Why do churches need names. The one we were attending at the time had no name so I put "no name". I don't have anything to hide I just don't fit into any category very well.

I grew up Christian Reformed (Covenant Theology, Calvin College, ...) and was a teacher in their schools and a deacon in a church. Moved on from that almost 15 years ago. Went to a Fundamentalist (IFCA) church for a few years. Joined with a church that was in the anabaptist tradition and was ordained an elder there. Saw where I had gone wrong there and attended an American Baptist Church for a couple of years and wasn't accepted very well for some of the reasons I am not accepted very well on the BB. Homechurched with a number of families for awhile and am currently attending a Baptist church that is a little on the conservative and stuffy side.

Can't think of anything else to let hang out so I won't be accused of being some undercover heretic. :smilewinkgrin:

What religion am I? I guess I would say Christian even though some here would probably wonder.

 

Yes, I deny that people are born with a sin nature. Does that disqualify me as being a Christian? I assume you think so since you ask what religion I am.

I do not think people are born sinners. I think they are sinners when they sin. I find it amazing that people think that is some strange idea.

I disagree and know exactly why you think so. In fact I might even know it better than you being a Calvinist of Calvinists. Of the tribe of the Dutch. Baptized on the 8th day. A teacher in their schools. A deacon in their church. As for zeal ...

 

My wife would laugh if she saw that question. She is glad I gave up on so much study. Her favorite verses for a while were "thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad" and "much study is a weariness of the flesh." :smilewinkgrin:

I know it won't mean much to you since I came to the "wrong" conclusions but this is not something I jumped into overnight.

God bless you in your quest for truth. He is blessing me in mine. :godisgood:

 

Btw, thanks for the info. I wasn't being nosy, just curious. You could have refused to answer and I would not have hounded you on it.

I think denial of the sin nature is outside the pale of orthodoxy from what I know.

Well, if people are not born sinners, then when they are born, they don't need a Savior, right?

??? I am not a Calvinist. Whatever gave you that idea??

 

Let me answer some of this for you, although it is addressed to Marcia.
There are many that have varying differences in doctrine. The standard and orthodox doctrine is that man has a sin nature that is passed down from generation to generation. If you have another view, such as you expressed, does not mean that you are not a Christian. No one here said or implied that. I also like to know what background a person has. It sometimes helps to understand where they are coming from.
I believe your view is wrong, but that is the nature of soul liberty. It doesn't make you a heretic.

Charles Finney had the same idea. If you follow its logic through it could be possible that a man could consistently choose not to sin, and thus be perfectly holy; thus entire sanctification. Finney thus thought that it was possible to create a community of believers that was perfect, sinless--a mini-type of the Millennial Kingdom on earth in his time. Of course it never came to pass. It was impossible. Man has a depraved nature and sins by nature. Finney would not accept this. It has never happened--not anywhere, anytime, ever since the time of Adam and Eve. That ought to demonstrate that man has a depraved nature in and of itself.

I don't about Marcia, but I am not a Calvinist; neither am I Arminian. My beliefs are simply based on the Bible. I refuse to be boxed into another man's system of theology.

I don't see how anyone can read the Scripture with any degree of objectivity and not believe that man is born with a sin nature.
As by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.

 

Didn't have any reason not to answer.

You are probably right on that but I like I said, I am not impressed with orthodoxy. Luther was very unorthodox, correct? Not that I am a big Luther fan, but orthodoxy would have kept him from gaining truth.

I have had this question asked before but I will gladly answer it again. A baby needs a savior. In fact, they even need a savior when they are in the womb? Along with all of creation which is groaning, a baby is an innocent victim of the curse. Do they need a savior for their sin? I don't think so, for they have not sinned yet.

Do you think baby's go to hell to burn eternally? Are they sent there by a just God who declares them guilty when they have never even done anything, much less sin?

I don't think I worded that very well. My words were in response to you saying that you agree that Adam did not have a sin nature but that everybody since him has had one. I was disagreeing with everybody else having one and was trying to say that I knew why you did. I should have wrote it this way:

I disagree and know exactly why you think so. In fact I might even know better than you since I ws raised a Calvinist of Calvinists, Of the tribe of the Dutch, baptized on the 8th day, a teacher in their schools, a deacon in their church, as for zeal...
It was a failed attempt at humor using Paul's words in Philippians about the things that he now counts as dung.

You and DHK make it sound like I am some dupe that has never thought this out. I was trying to point out that I was indoctrinated with this stuff since birth.
My mom actually used to say "you are so totally depraved" when we were naughty as children. Nevertheless I love her dearly to this day.

 

The problem is that you are looking at sin as the act but SIN is a condition that causes the acts. You don't have to do bad or immoral things to be a sinner, because we are all sinners, by condition.

 

Btw, I agree with DHK's post right before this one.

Luther was not orthodox according to the Catholics. Is that what you mean? I am not sure what you mean by Luther being unorthodox. Of course, I don't follow Luther or any man and whether he was orthodox or not is not that influential on what I believe.

So you're saying the baby is sinless but needs a savior?
It seems like your philosophy creates more problems than it solves.

You haven't been reading the whole thread. I already addressed this, at least twice. The short answer: no. But I don't have time to explain it again.

Maybe your background is what you are reacting to. I am actually sometimes very grateful that I was not saved until late in life because I had very little Christian "conditioning" when younger although I did attend various churches. I was not a believer and rejected it all in high school (my father was agnostic and my mother a nominal Southern Baptist). So I had no Christian indoctrination and no true understanding of Christian doctrines when exposed to it. It was all sort of a fairy tale to me.

 

From this opinion you read the Bible for you will not be able to support it with clear scripture. Actually the opposite is what I see.

How do you defend God being just for holding us accountable for being born with a "condition" that we had no control over?

 

"Un" is a negative prefix and when followed by orthodox means not orthodox. I never said you did follow Luther or any man for that matter. To say so would not add anything to the discussion. It was merely an attempt to show that being orthodox is not always best. You keep defending your position by saying it is orthodox. That is meaningless to me.

That it causes problems may only be because of preconceived ideas that you have. I don't see any. I am not trying to solve problems with my doctrine anyway.

I looked back and saw that you say depravity has to do with a sinful heart. Does having a sinful heart make one a sinner? Or are we sinners when we act upon those desires? I do not see babies as being born guilty as many do. I believer babies are born in sinful flesh as Jesus was, but are not sinners until they act in disobedience. What that does with the "accountability" issue I cannot answer because I don't think there is an age that determines it. I let the judge make that decision.

This may sound good and may make a casual follower of this (or someone cheering you on) say "you go girl", but is not substantial in anyway. Wouldn't you agree?

I reacted to my upbringing in a negative way about 15 years ago, even as a believer, but over the last 5 years I have been more and more thankful for it. I disagree with my parents theology (it isn't theirs actually, but rather it is their churches. They are more prone to going with the flow than I am.) but am very grateful for what they have passed on to me in so many ways.

I noticed you brought up Pelagian. I don't know much about him, but I probably lean more toward his way of thinking than Calvin's. (And yes I know you are not a Calvinist. Now please don't call me a Pelagian or semi pelagian). You posted earlier that a lot of liberals lean toward him. You will not find anybody that knows me a liberal. A little different maybe, but not a liberal.

 

You are addressing someone else, but I can't resist commenting on you asking someone to "defend God being just." God doesn't need any defense! God is just. We don't know or understand all His ways or reasons. As believers, we trust Him as the just and merciful God we know.

True justice would be that everyone goes to hell because no one is righteous enough to be in God's presence. But God is merciful enough to have given us a way of salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

I actually wasn't asking you to defend God, for I don't think what I described is the truth. How do you defend the position that God can be just in holding people guilty for being born with a condition they had nothing to do with?

Then God is not truly just according to what you just said. God is just in that the penalty for sin is death. That penalty was paid by Jesus and imputed to me by God himself for he know there was no other hope for me. :godisgood:

 

What I mean by orthodox is the historical Christian faith. But I'm not going to debate that. Been there, done that, have the T shirt.

Babies are born with a sin nature; they are not born righteous. One does not have to commit a sin to be a sinful creature; this is where you disagree with me, DHK, my church, my seminary, my mission board, and the Christians I know. Accountability is a separate issue. When is one accountable? I don't think we know.

I didn't offer it as anything more than just a comment/thought I was throwing out.

I will not call you a Pelagian. Actually, I've been called a semi-Pelagian here on the BB.

 

I believe that this is dangerously close to heresy if it isn't already.
Was Jesus born in sinful flesh, as you say? Would that not make Jesus a sinner--contrary to the Word of God, and all orthodox Christian teaching. A sinner cannot die for another sinner. He could be our sacrifice because he was sinless, and born sinless. The sinless took the place of the sinner. That is the idea behind the atonement. He became our substitute. But what qualified Him as our substitute for sin. The fact that He was perfect man: completely sinless in every way.

Babies are born with a sin nature; Jesus was not. He could not have been. He escaped being born with a sin nature via the virgin birth being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not man by which the sin nature is passed down throughout the generations.

Flesh in and of itself is simply atoms and molecules put together. If you take the body at death, boil it all down, the some total of all its chemicals might be worth about $5.00 at today's market price. They are simply chemicals made from atoms which compose molecules. There is nothing sinful about that.

 

It is not a matter of holding people guilty but more that someone who is not righteous cannot be in God's presences unless cleaned up by the blood of Jesus.

 

You better watch out, if you get to know me you won't be able to say that
anymore. :smilewinkgrin: