Your views on human beings having a sin nature

Do human beings having a sin nature?


  • Total voters
    8

Obadiah

Well-known member
Some of us believe the fall resulted in the birth of a sin nature in Adam. That is because all people shared in Adam’s guilt, this sin nature was passed on to all future generations. As a result, sin is pervasive in every man and woman. And it is out of this sin nature that we do sinful acts. I'd like to know what some of the rest of us believe on this topic.

Rom. 5:12
Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.

1 Cor. 15:22
For just as [because of their union of nature] in Adam all people die, so also [by virtue of their union of nature] shall all in Christ be made alive.

Mark 7:20–23
20 And He said, What comes out of a man is what makes a man unclean and renders [him] unhallowed.
21 For from within, [that is] out of the hearts of men, come base and wicked thoughts, sexual immorality, stealing, murder, adultery,
22 Coveting (a greedy desire to have more wealth), dangerous and destructive wickedness, deceit; unrestrained (indecent) conduct; an evil eye (envy), slander (evil speaking, malicious misrepresentation, abusiveness), pride (the sin of an uplifted heart against God and man), foolishness (folly, lack of sense, recklessness, thoughtlessness).
23 All these evil [purposes and desires] come from within, and they make the man unclean and render him unhallowed
 
To me the biblical account of the fall is simply the explanation of how man’s tendency to sin came about. It gives us the answer to why evil exists in the world. If I miss something in my understanding of our sin nature I would sure like to know about it.
 
To me the biblical account of the fall is simply the explanation of how man’s tendency to sin came about. It gives us the answer to why evil exists in the world. If I miss something in my understanding of our sin nature I would sure like to know about it.
Same here. It definitely looks like something to do a study on. I'll start with my old standby.

What is the sin nature?​

Proof of the sin nature abounds. No one has to teach a child to lie or be selfish; rather, we go to great lengths to teach children to tell the truth and put others first. Sinful behavior comes naturally. The news is filled with tragic examples of mankind acting badly. Wherever people are, there is trouble. Charles Spurgeon said, “As the salt flavors every drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived.”
 
total depravity was not believed in the early church and they believed in free will. augustine brought TD into the church from his pagan, gnostic and greek philosophy and married it with Christianity. in fact he flip flopped with TD and free will over the years.
 
Some of us believe the fall resulted in the birth of a sin nature in Adam.
So then, WHY did Adam (after Eve) toss God under the bus, and side with satan against Him WITHOUT THE BENEFIT of a SIN NATURE ??

Bottom line: Adam WITH HIS HUMAN NATURE (same as we all have), followed the James 1:14,15 "temptation sequence" in exactly the way the rest of us do. Drawn away of HIS OWN LUST (strong INTERNAL personal desire), and "Enticed" (External influences - the urging of the "Serpent" in Eve's, and then Adam's cases).

Result: Eve, and then Adam allowed their OWN lusts to "Concieve" resulting in the birth of SINFUL ACTIONS. i.e. they did exactly what God had told them NOT to do.

There's no such thing as a "Sin Nature" (that's nothing but human "theology"). The only thing that made Adam's sin "Original" was that it was the FIRST ONE (actually the second after Eve).

Adam and Eve DID Instantly die SPIRITUALLY, and then after many years they died Physically. It's not revealed whether or not they ever re-established their relationship with God. Able knew to respect God, while Cain didn't.

God's reaction to A & E's SIN was to radically alter their ENVIRONMENT (He cursed the earth) to the state that it's in today, and eliminated their "Free lunch".

HE also cursed the "Serpent", apparently changing it physically (we have NO IDEA what the "Serpent" was in the Garden).

YOU and I, however, share NOTHING about Adam, OTHER THAN that we all have the same HUMAN NATURE that Adam, Jesus, and we were all born with.

Jesus was tempted in every respect AS WE ARE, but never allowed HIS "lust" to "Conceive" and become SINFUL ACTIONS. "Temptation" isn't SIN, ACTING ON IT is where SIN occurs.

WE, on the other hand INVARIABLY will allow our lust to conceive and produce SIN. Not EVERY TIME, but only once does the job. We don't need Adam's guilt - we're completely capable of providing our own, as soon as we can.

And Babies are conceived, and subsequently born INNOCENT inheriting NO GUILT from Adam whatsoever. They have a HUMAN NATURE, and will naturally fall into sin on their own. David expected to meet HIS baby in Heaven when He dies, just like I expect to meet Angeline (out first born who didn't make it) when I get there.
 
So then, WHY did Adam (after Eve) toss God under the bus, and side with satan against Him WITHOUT THE BENEFIT of a SIN NATURE ??

Bottom line: Adam WITH HIS HUMAN NATURE (same as we all have), followed the James 1:14,15 "temptation sequence" in exactly the way the rest of us do. Drawn away of HIS OWN LUST (strong INTERNAL personal desire), and "Enticed" (External influences - the urging of the "Serpent" in Eve's, and then Adam's cases).

Result: Eve, and then Adam allowed their OWN lusts to "Concieve" resulting in the birth of SINFUL ACTIONS. i.e. they did exactly what God had told them NOT to do.

There's no such thing as a "Sin Nature" (that's nothing but human "theology"). The only thing that made Adam's sin "Original" was that it was the FIRST ONE (actually the second after Eve).

Adam and Eve DID Instantly die SPIRITUALLY, and then after many years they died Physically. It's not revealed whether or not they ever re-established their relationship with God. Able knew to respect God, while Cain didn't.

God's reaction to A & E's SIN was to radically alter their ENVIRONMENT (He cursed the earth) to the state that it's in today, and eliminated their "Free lunch".

HE also cursed the "Serpent", apparently changing it physically (we have NO IDEA what the "Serpent" was in the Garden).

YOU and I, however, share NOTHING about Adam, OTHER THAN that we all have the same HUMAN NATURE that Adam, Jesus, and we were all born with.

Jesus was tempted in every respect AS WE ARE, but never allowed HIS "lust" to "Conceive" and become SINFUL ACTIONS. "Temptation" isn't SIN, ACTING ON IT is where SIN occurs.

WE, on the other hand INVARIABLY will allow our lust to conceive and produce SIN. Not EVERY TIME, but only once does the job. We don't need Adam's guilt - we're completely capable of providing our own, as soon as we can.

And Babies are conceived, and subsequently born INNOCENT inheriting NO GUILT from Adam whatsoever. They have a HUMAN NATURE, and will naturally fall into sin on their own. David expected to meet HIS baby in Heaven when He dies, just like I expect to meet Angeline (out first born who didn't make it) when I get there.
ditto
 
Denial of the sin nature is by default the sin of self-righteous pride, for it is claiming inherent goodness not based on the Work of the Cross.

That's the important point.
 
Denial of the sin nature is by default the sin of self-righteous pride, for it is claiming inherent goodness not based on the Work of the Cross.

That's the important point.
strawman as no one is a sinner until they sin then and only then are they guilty of sin.
 
My view is in the beginning we were created in God's image and I believe after the fall that image is severely tarnished. So much so That God had to save us. Because, we possess a natural tendency to sin. We can hate, lie, and perform other acts out of character with the nature of God.

When God created the earth and life, He said that it was “very good”. The earth was a place free from sin, evil, and human (and animal) suffering. Yet today, we all suffer emotional and physical pain, are subject to diseases and natural disasters, and are victims of evil and perpetrators of sin. What caused God’s perfect creation to turn sour?

Correct it was the fall. The historic entrance of evil and suffering into the world is explained in the Bible as the Fall. There was a reason for the flood and it wasn't because human beings were a sweet warm and wonderful. Do you think it might have been because our sin nature was getting way out of hand?

One of the things about sin in our lives is it gets worse and worse, sin leads to more sin.

The problem with sin is that the human heart is not strong enough to withstand its control. In fact, without the redeeming, regenerate work of Jesus Christ, the heart itself is corrupted with sin at its core, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9

It should be interesting to see where this thread goes. I find it hard to believe human beings don't have a sin nature, but I've been wrong before.
 
Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” ‘

– John Wesley, The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley (1835 Edition), volume 2, p. 110


‘Calvinists have tried to say that the doctrine of man’s total inability is the historic position of the Church, but that is simply not true. Many take for granted that the Church has always held to the doctrine of total inability. Yet a study of history reveals that the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early Church, without exception, for the first three to four hundred years. The Early Church was continually defending the doctrine of free will and refuting the Gnostic’s who held to the doctrine of total inability and determinism or fatalism.
The Gnostic’s had a predestination philosophy, or a fatalistic mentality of “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be.)”[1] But the Early Church believed that man’s free choice had a major contribution or ultimate determination to his course and destiny. The Gnostic’s, who claimed to be the real Christians, taught that man’s nature was so corrupted and ruined that man did not have a free choice between good and evil; while the Early Church taught that God has granted the faculty of free will to the nature of all mankind and has preserved that free will so that it has not been lost, as we shall see.
There are those today who make the doctrine of total inability an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and are quick to condemn anyone who would dare question or challenge it. But in the times of early Christianity, the doctrine of free will was considered orthodox and the doctrine of total inability was heretical. Being considered orthodox or heretical is merely a matter of dates. The Early Church said that only Gnostic’s deny the freedom of the will; yet many denominations of our day say that only heretics affirm it.

Gnosticism vs. Early Christianity

In the days of the Early Church, the debate between the freedom of man’s will vs. the total depravity of man’s nature was one of the major divisions between the early Christians and the Gnostic sects. Beausobre said, “…those ancient writers, in general, say that Manichaeans denied free-will. The reason is, that the Fathers believed, and maintained, against the Manichaeans, that whatever state man is in he has the command over his own actions, and has equally power to do good or evil.”[2] W. F. Hook said, “The Manichaeans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning.”[3] Lyman Beecher said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church… natural inability was to that of the pagan philosophers, the Gnostic’s, and the Manichaeans.”[4]
There were many different Gnostic groups in the days of early Christianity, who also denied the freedom of man’s will, such as Marcionism started by Marcion. But one of the greatest competitors and threats to the Early Church was the Manichaeans started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.

The Early Church debated the founder of this Gnostic group in the “Acta Archelai,” also known as “The Disputation with Manes.” Archelaus, a bishop in the Early Church, represented their doctrine that God does not make us with ruined natures but has given us free will. Mani took the Gnostic position that man’s nature was totally depraved and corrupted and that man did not have a free will.
The judges of the debate ruled in favor of Archelaeus and ruled against Mani, stating that man does in fact have free will as opposed to a depraved nature. The belief of early Christianity is stated in the debate in this way, “All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment… our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin… And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment… There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases.”[5]
This debate of constitutional liberty vs. constitutional corruption between Mani and Archelaus dealt with the very core of Early Christianity vs. the emerging Gnosticism. The danger that the Early Church saw with the Gnostics was that they professed to be Christians and they claimed to be teaching Christian doctrine. In fact, the Gnostic’s declared that they were the real or true Christians who had special knowledge that others did not. The Church considered Manichaeans to be imposters and Manichaeism to be a counterfeit. The leaders of Christianity were worried that Gnostic doctrine might corrupt the Churches.

The Gnostics, for example, taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself. Hans Jonas said that in Gnosticism, “The human body is of devilish substance and – in this trait exceeding the general derogation of the universe – also of a devilish design.”[6] Because the Gnostic’s viewed the flesh as a sinful substance, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and that is why the Scriptures called them “antichrist” (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 Jn. 1:7).

Gnosticism believes that sin is the substance of the body, which is inherited at conception, so that man is born sinful or with a sinful nature. The Early Church, on the other hand, taught that sin was a free choice of the will, which is originated by the individual. The Gnostics taught that man was sinful by nature, while the Early Church taught that man was sinful by choice.
It was referring to these Gnostic groups that John wrote, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). We can see then that the teachings of the Gnostics were condemned in the Scriptures.
 
Continued :

On the other hand, in Philippians 4:3 Paul mentions “my fellowlabourers” “in the gospel,” and he names “Clement,” whose name he said was written “in the book of life…” History knows this man, who was Paul’s companion and who was endorsed by the Scriptures themselves, as Clement of Rome. Clement said, “It is therefore in the power of every one, since man has been made possessed of free-will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.”[7] Clement said that “free-will” was given because “he who is good by his own choice is really good; but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice…”[8] Clement also said that the reason a sinner was susceptible to God’s punishment for their disobedience was because a sinner has the ability to obey God. He said, “For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.”[9] The reason that a sinner is punishable for sinning, he said, is because a sinner is able not to sin. He said that a sinner is punished, not for his inability but for his negligence.

Ignatius was another figure in the Early Church. He was a disciple of the Apostle John and was martyred in the Roman Coliseum by being eaten by lions. In contradiction to Gnosticism, Ignatius taught that men were sinners, not by nature but by choice. Ignatius said, “If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.”[10] Ignatius also said, “…there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life.”[11]

The Apostle John also had a disciple named Polycarp. Polycarp was the Bishop of the Church in Smyrna when Revelation was written. The Church of Smyrna was one of the only Churches in Revelation which Jesus did not say anything negative against (Rev. 2:8-11). Polycarp was a personal friend of Ignatius and he too was also sent to the Coliseum and was martyred as Ignatius was.

Polycarp had a faithful disciple named Irenaeus. Irenaeus refuted the Gnostics by saying, “Men are possessed with free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.”[12] He also said, “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments.”[13] And, “man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will (in whom likeness man was created)…”[14] And he said, “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God.”[15]

Justin Martyr was an early evangelist and apologist for the Christian faith. He labored tirelessly for the Lord until he too was martyred in Rome. He said, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whatever they may be … for neither would a man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”[16]

Tertullian was another leader in the Early Church. He was a Christian apologist and is known for his prolific writings. He was in perfect agreement with early Christianity when he said, “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”[17]

Methodius was a Christian martyr who lived near the end of the third century. He wrote, “Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.”[18] He said, “…the Divine Being is not by nature implicated in evils. Therefore our birth is not the cause of these things…”[19] He went on to say that men are “possessing free will, and not by nature evil…”[20] He said, “…there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will… and this alone is evil, namely, disobedience…”[21] And he also said, “God did not make evil, nor is He at all in any way the author of evil; but whatever failed to keep the law, which He in all justice ordained, after being made by Him with the faculty of free-will, for the purpose of guarding and keeping it, is called evil. Now it is the gravest fault to disobey God, by overstepping the bounds of that righteousness which is consistent with free-will…”[22]

Eusebius was a Bishop in the Early Church who is considered the father of “Church History” for his extensive writings in ecclesiastical history. He wrote, “On the Life of Pamphilus,” “Chronicle of Universal History,” and “On the Martyrs.” He clearly laid out the position of the Early Church on this topic when he wrote, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature!”[23] Eusebius went as far as to say that it was the doctrine of devils to teach that man’s will was not at liberty but in the bonds of necessity. He said, “The devil in his oracles hangs all things upon fate, and taking away that which is in our power, and arises from self-motion of free will… brings this also into bondage to necessity.”[24]

There is no shortage or lack of supply from the Early Church when it comes to quotations in regards to the freedom of man’s will; but the quotations referenced above should suffice to make my point that free will was a universal doctrine of early Christianity. What the Early Church believed and what the Gnostic’s believed should be brought to our attention and considered in this discussion. An understanding of the origin of doctrines such as inability is very helpful. The Gnostic’s held to the doctrine of man’s total inability and this doctrine did not find any acceptance at all by the Church until Augustine converted from Manichaean Gnosticism, as we shall see.
 
So then, WHY did Adam (after Eve) toss God under the bus, and side with satan against Him WITHOUT THE BENEFIT of a SIN NATURE ??

Bottom line: Adam WITH HIS HUMAN NATURE (same as we all have), followed the James 1:14,15 "temptation sequence" in exactly the way the rest of us do. Drawn away of HIS OWN LUST (strong INTERNAL personal desire), and "Enticed" (External influences - the urging of the "Serpent" in Eve's, and then Adam's cases).

Result: Eve, and then Adam allowed their OWN lusts to "Concieve" resulting in the birth of SINFUL ACTIONS. i.e. they did exactly what God had told them NOT to do.

There's no such thing as a "Sin Nature" (that's nothing but human "theology"). The only thing that made Adam's sin "Original" was that it was the FIRST ONE (actually the second after Eve).

Adam and Eve DID Instantly die SPIRITUALLY, and then after many years they died Physically. It's not revealed whether or not they ever re-established their relationship with God. Able knew to respect God, while Cain didn't.

God's reaction to A & E's SIN was to radically alter their ENVIRONMENT (He cursed the earth) to the state that it's in today, and eliminated their "Free lunch".

HE also cursed the "Serpent", apparently changing it physically (we have NO IDEA what the "Serpent" was in the Garden).

YOU and I, however, share NOTHING about Adam, OTHER THAN that we all have the same HUMAN NATURE that Adam, Jesus, and we were all born with.

Jesus was tempted in every respect AS WE ARE, but never allowed HIS "lust" to "Conceive" and become SINFUL ACTIONS. "Temptation" isn't SIN, ACTING ON IT is where SIN occurs.

WE, on the other hand INVARIABLY will allow our lust to conceive and produce SIN. Not EVERY TIME, but only once does the job. We don't need Adam's guilt - we're completely capable of providing our own, as soon as we can.

And Babies are conceived, and subsequently born INNOCENT inheriting NO GUILT from Adam whatsoever. They have a HUMAN NATURE, and will naturally fall into sin on their own. David expected to meet HIS baby in Heaven when He dies, just like I expect to meet Angeline (out first born who didn't make it) when I get there.
So instead of an inherit sin nature what we really have Is free will. Free to choose sin or not to choose sin. That's the one that people have a hard time believing, As our natural tendencies in this Fallen World is to choose to sin.
 
Continued from our old forum :

Free Will Is A Faculty Of Our Nature

The Early Church, before Augustine, taught that free will was an essential element of our God given nature. That is, they taught that it was a faculty of our constitution, and that we abuse that faculty of free will when we choose to sin. They taught that all men have the same nature in the sense that the faculty of free will is in the constitution of all.

Irenaeus said, “Forasmuch as all men are of the same nature, having power to hold and to do that which is good, and having power again to lose it, and not to do what is right; before men of sense, (and how much more before God!) some… are justly accused, and receive condign punishment, because they refuse what is just and right.”[25] Again Irenaeus said, “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not worked good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made bynature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way, nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to do what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.”[26]

Pelagius, who is historically known for teaching free will in the days of Augustine, was in perfect agreement with the Early Church on this point. He said, “In all there is free-will equally by nature…”[27]

Origen said, “The Scriptures…emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right… We are responsible for being bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.”[28] He also said, “the heretics introduce the doctrine of different natures.”[29]

There were two conflicting views of human nature during the days of the Early Church. The Christians believed that free will was a faculty of the nature of every man by virtue of his creation. Therefore the Early Christians viewed the sinfulness of man as being all together voluntary, caused by the freedom of their own wills. The Gnostics, on the other hand, believed that the human nature of each man was created so corrupt and ruined that mankind did not have the freedom to choose what was good. They viewed the actions of men as being caused by their natures. The Early Christians taught that it is not that some men choose evil because their nature is evil, while other men choose what was good because their natures were good, but that all men have the same nature, all having the faculty of free will in their constitution, and each man chooses by free will to be either good or evil in their moral character.

The errors of the Gnostics were continually rejected by the Early Church, but the Gnostics continued to try to penetrate the Church with their views. The Gnostics even wrote their own gospels, known as the Gnostic Gospels today, where they stole credible names like Mary and Thomas to try to give validity to their teachings.

While many of the attempts of the Gnostics to infiltrate the Church failed, and many of their views are widely rejected today, it seems that their particular view of human nature, free will, and the nature of sin has found wide acceptance in the Church today. While the view of the Early Church on human nature, free will, and sin is seldom held to or taught in our time.

None Deny that the Early Church Taught the Freedom of the Will

Episcopius said, “What is plainer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal and external necessity!”[30] One would think that if a doctrine was truly derived from the Scriptures and were taught by the Apostles, that we would find that the Early Church believed it, especially during its years when it was the most faithful to God, when men were shedding their blood in martyrdom in the Roman Coliseum. But the doctrine of total inability was not taught by the Churches which the Apostles founded; rather, the doctrine of man’s natural ability was.

Regarding the term “free will,” John Calvin admitted “As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths…”[31] He said, “The Greek fathers above others” have taught “the power of the human will”[32] and “they have not been ashamed to make use of a much more arrogant expression calling man ‘free agent or self-manager,’ just as if man had a power to govern himself…”[33] He also said, “The Latin fathers have always retained the word ‘free will’ as if man stood yet upright.”[34] It is a fact that cannot be denied even by those who most ardently oppose the doctrine of free will, that the doctrine of free will and not that of inability was held by all of the Early Church.

Walter Arthur Copinger said, “All the Fathers are unanimous on the freedom of the human will…”[35] Lyman Beecher said, “the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church…”[36] And Dr Wiggers said, “All the fathers…agreed with the Pelagians, in attributing freedom of will to man in his present state.”[37] This is a very important point because whenever a person today holds to the belief that all men have the natural ability to obey God or not to obey Him, or that man’s nature still retains the faculty of free will and can choose between these two alternatives and possibilities, he is almost immediately accused of being a heretical “Pelagian” by the Calvinists. This accusation is being unfair to the position of free will since all of the Early Church Fathers held to free will long before Pelagius even existed.

The Pelagians agreed with free will, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who agrees with free will is a Pelagian. Such reasoning is as fallacious as saying that everyone who believes in the virgin birth is a Catholic. While the Catholics believe in the virgin birth, that belief is not exclusively Catholic, thus it is fallacious to say that everyone who believes in the virgin birth is a Catholic.

Likewise the Pelagians believed in free will, but the belief in free will is not exclusively a Pelagian doctrine. Therefore, not everyone who believes in free will is a Pelagian. Williston Walker said that even in Pelagius’ own day, Pelagius’ teaching on “the freedom of the human will” was “in agreement with many in the West” and with “the East generally…”[38]

Asa Mahan said that free will “was the doctrine of the primitive church for the first four or five centuries after the Bible was written, the church which received the ‘lively oracles’ directly from the hands of some of those by whom they were written, to wit: the writers of the New Testament. It should be borne in mind here, that at the time the sacred canon was completed, the doctrine of Necessity was held by the leading sects in the Jewish Church. It was also the fundamental article of the creed of all the sects in philosophy throughout the world, as well as of all the forms of heathenism then extant. If the doctrine of Necessity, as its advocates maintain, is the doctrine taught the church by inspired apostles and the writers of the New Testament, we should not fail to find, under such circumstances, the churches planted by them, rooted and grounded in this doctrine.”[39] Rather, we find that absolutely all of the Early Church affirmed free will and explicitly denied the doctrine of total inability. If the doctrine of total inability was taught by the Apostles, you would expect that their faithful disciples who gave their lives in martyrdom would have taught it; but as we have seen, they did not.

David Bercot said, “The Early Christians didn’t believe that man is totally depraved [totally unable] and incapable of doing any good. They taught that humans are capable of obeying and loving God.”[40] He went on to say, “There was a religious group, labeled as heretics by the early Christians… they taught that man is totally depraved [totally unable]… the group I’m referring to are the Gnostics.”[41]

When reading the writings of the early Christians, you would think by some of their quotes that they were engaged in debates with Calvinists and were seeking to refute Calvinism. However, it was actually the Gnostic’s that they were debating. It was Gnosticism which they were refuting. It should cause no small concern for those who hold to the doctrine of inability that there is no support from the Early Church for their doctrine, but they actually only have the Gnostic who agree with them. At the very least, this should make them reconsider their doctrine.
 
So instead of an inherit sin nature what we really have Is free will. Free to choose sin or not to choose sin. That's the one that people have a hard time believing, As our natural tendencies in this Fallen World is to choose to sin.
Adam had a free choice to obey or disobey God. He knew the consequences of disobedience. Although evil already existed in the person of Satan (who had himself previously rebelled against God), it was Adam’s free choice that allowed sin to affect mankind. When there is freedom to choose between good and evil, there is always the possibility that evil will be chosen. Adam chose sin. With this choice came punishment and human suffering.
 
strawman as no one is a sinner until they sin then and only then are they guilty of sin.

You realize that by default, if you have not sinned, you are holy, pure and righteous.

You have inherent goodness.

You can't just cry "straw man" than violate logic and doublspeak every time you want get out of a logical conclusion to your own premises.

No, we are born INCAPABLE of keeping the Law of God, aka, sinful.
 
You realize that by default, if you have not sinned, you are holy, pure and righteous.

You have inherent goodness.

You can't just cry "straw man" than violate logic and doublspeak every time you want get out of a logical conclusion to your own premises.

No, we are born INCAPABLE of keeping the Law of God, aka, sinful.
no you are conflating them. It means you are not held guilty for sins you did not commit.
 
Adam was the corporate head of the human race. What does this mean? Simply that when Adam sinned, he represented all of us. Just as the decisions made by the ruler of a nation affect all the people subject to him, so Adam’s decision to rebel against God affected all humanity. Like Adam, we too rebel against God and deserve punishment. In this sense we all share Adam’s guilt.

Because Adam was representative of humanity, the Fall opened the door for Satan to have direct and powerful influence in this world system, including our individual lives. Satan effectively became the ruler of this present world, and humanity inherited a sin nature—a natural tendency to sin. Just as some diseases are passed on from generation to generation, so too sin is an inherited disease.

While Adam was created with a free will and could choose not to sin, today because of this sin nature, we are incapable of living sinless lives. As a result, sin is pervasive in every person, and it is out of this sin nature that we commit sinful acts.
 
Back
Top Bottom