Consequences of a Sinful Nature – 1

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Does or does not man have an inherent sinful nature? Many would adamantly affirm “yes” as their thinking and convictions have been influenced by Augustine’s and later Calvin’s doctrine of total hereditary depravity. Some would say “no,” but their excusal of sin because we are, after all, “just humans,” would state otherwise. However, any sincere student of the Bible should have very little concern with the views of men, especially those of such men as Calvin and Augustine; but should, rather, have a greater desire to arrive at the conclusion warranted by the truth of scripture.

God has always held man in high esteem. It seems obvious from His creation of man in contrast to His creation of all animals (of which man is not) that man is an exalted being when compared to the animal kingdom. One of the primary differences between man and animal in creation was the provision of free will. Man has free will; the ability to reason and act according to logical thinking—animals do not (at least not in the same capacity). It is the case then, that because man has the freedom of choice that when sin is committed, it is committed in accordance to that free will, and not any inherent nature with which man was plagued. Therefore, when God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden, at the time of their creation they were innocent, therefore free of sin. Similarly, then, when each subsequent soul enters life at birth, they enter in a state of purity, for which reason Jesus would command that in entering the kingdom we must “be converted, and become as little children” (Matthew 18:3). If we do, in fact, have a sinful nature, of what benefit does becoming as little children actually reap? The Biblical position, proven by this fact as well as a host of others in Scripture, is that man does not have a sinful nature, but any sin committed, is in fact, the result of free will. One avenue, though, of great benefit in concluding the same is not only knowing the affirmative position of the Bible, but knowing the consequences of any alternative positions. If any false doctrine has unbelievable and unacceptable consequences it is the deadly doctrine of “the sinful nature.” What are just a few of these?

If man does in fact have a sinful nature, it would automatically conclude that God is unjust. How can such be concluded? Because the only way man could have an innate and overwhelming unction to sin outside any realm of free will is if God created him that way! When God created man, any programming that was done was done by God. And keep in mind that man was programmed to perform certain tasks outside of the realm of free will. For instance, I do not have to remind myself every few seconds to breath. My body has been programmed to automatically perform that function. And if I try to overrule that programming and hold my breath, I could do so even to the point of passing out, but when I pass out guess what my body is going to immediately start doing—it will automatically begin breathing once again. Why do I have such a “nature?” Because God gave it to me when I was created. Any programming that I have came from God, and if I have been programmed to sin (which is exactly what a sinful nature means) then that came from God too. But how could God on one hand create me with the urge and nature to sin but on the other hand command me to abstain from sin? To do so would be unjust, and that is a very serious consequence of a sinful nature. How many advocates of such would like to put their name to the affirmation that God is unjust? I imagine none. But that is exactly what such a doctrine implies. The Bible, though, affirms something very differently. As early as Deuteronomy 7:9, Israel was being reminded that God is “the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.” Would God have been faithful to them in punishing them for their sins if they literally had no choice in the matter? Certainly not, but He would have rather been quite unjust in His dealings with them. It has been, is, and will forevermore be the truth that “there hath not temptation take you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). If, though, I am programmed to sin because of some nature that is within me, then I have no way of escape because I am automatically bound to yield to that temptation. And if I do not have a way of escape, in contrast to Paul’s statement, then, also in contrast to Paul’s statement, God is not faithful. That is a statement I reject; but one that is a consequence of the very serious and deadly doctrine of a sinful nature. So, does man have a sinful nature? No, because to so state would be to state that God is in fact unjust.

-Andy Brewer

Leave a Comment