The theology of inherited sin nature is dominant in all forms of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Outside of radical Arminianism, I know of no major group that rejects sin nature. Instead, opponents of inherited sin nature can be found scattered among a variety of theological traditions. This creates a major problem: sin nature is taught as dogma in nearly all churches and dissenting arguments are rarely heard. I have often heard it said that sin nature is an essential doctrine; that you can't understand salvation unless you accept sin nature, but I've never heard an explanation for why this is the case other than, "some theologian said so". If this doctrine is so essential, we should be sure that it is in fact Biblical.
The typical view of inherited sin nature is that every person has some basic sort of evil at the core of their being; sin is simply part of being human. Others view sin nature as a strong compulsion to sin. Either way, sin nature is an inevitable and inseparable part of mankind. Why is this a considered an essential doctrine? It has nothing to do with the gospel, repentance, faith, or the new birth. Actually, it would present the ultimate excuse for guilty sinners. Therefore, I argue that inherited sin nature is a dangerous doctrine. In short, if sin is some inescapable part of my nature, then it's not really my fault if I sin, right? In reality, the guilty sinner doesn't need to repent of Adam's sin (besides, how could they?), they need to repent of their own specific willful sins. The idea of sin nature distracts from this.
There is another theological problem with inherited sin nature that is even worse. If sin nature existed, it would certainly play a major role in how humans are tempted. Yet, Jesus was "In all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). If we have a sin nature, this passage wouldn't be true unless Jesus did also. But to claim that Jesus had a sin nature is a MAJOR theological problem. If you believe in inherited sin nature, you have to reconcile this issue. I've yet to hear anyone from the sin nature side even attempt to tackle this problem.
I've shown some huge theological contradictions with sin nature, but I also want to examine the Bible passages that supposedly support it before I propose an alternate viewpoint. Psalm 51:5 is commonly cited, but examine what David actually says: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." How was he shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin? Did his mother commit adultery? Was he referring to other sin surrounding his conception? Or was he poetically referring to the world he was being conceived into? (this is a poem after all) It's hard to be 100% sure, but there's certainly nothing here about inheriting the sin of his mother, his father, Adam, or anyone else.
Psalm 58:3 is also commonly quoted in support of inherited sin nature. It's obvious that this passage is just poetic, because infants in the womb are quite incapable of telling lies. It's also claimed that Romans 5:12 teaches that Adam's sin spread to all men. Look again. It says death is what spread to all men, not sin. In fact, it says death spread to all men because all have sinned (Men die for their own sin, not Adam's). Finally, Romans 7:25 only teaches sin nature if you're cherry picking a very bad translation (NIV, NLT) to support your position.
After dealing with those few verses, the argument for sin nature completely breaks down. Sin nature proponents resort to citing verses that state things to the effect of "all have sinned". Yup, I agree. However, this argument is not about if everyone sins, but rather how that sin got there. Is it the result of their own bad choices, or were they born with it? So, the hundreds of verses that discuss the sinfulness of humanity are not relevant to the argument for inherited sin nature. But if we don't have a sin nature, how do we explain these verses? Are we all just neutral? I think not. For example, Paul talks about being a slave to sin in his unsaved state (Rom. 7). This is far from neutral, but how did he get that way?
At this point, I want to present an alternate view. Up to this point I've been using the term "inherited sin nature", because now I'm going to introduce a viewpoint that could be called "acquired sin nature". The concept is hardly worth such a title though. It's very simple: sin is addictive. As we sin throughout our lives and the addiction builds, it quickly starts to look like what some might call a "sin nature". The addiction to sin produces a greater and greater proclivity to sin.
So if humans still have a proclivity to sin, what's the difference? If you inherited a sin nature from Adam, you couldn't help it. Any sin you would commit is, at least partially, not your fault. But your proclivity to sin came about through your own actions, you can't blame anyone but yourself. Imagine a meth addict who has been strung out for a year. Their compulsion to do meth is so strong that it's nearly impossible for them to stop. They might argue they barely have control over their actions, that they are a slave to their addiction. Yet, they still hold 100% of the blame, because they made the choices that led to their addiction.
Similarly, fornicators find it hard to give up their lifestyle. Homosexuals convince themselves that their sin is just part of who they are. Ever notice that sin is a downward spiral? It's the addiction at work. Fornicators need more partners and wilder acts. Liars tell bigger and bolder lies. Criminals rarely keep doing the same thing, they have to graduate to more serious crimes to keep getting the rush. This is what sin does: it blinds us, hardens our heart, and pushes us farther away from God.
Thankfully, this addiction is broken when you repent, trust Christ, and are born again. That's the difference between the saved and the lost. While Christians might fall into sin at times, even back into the same ones as before, there is no addiction. The downward spiral is replaced with new desires and an upward climb. I hope you've experienced that freedom from sin. If not, repent now!
In conclusion, I've shown that there is no Biblical support for the idea of inherited sin nature. I've also pointed out several major theological contradictions that would occur if sin nature were true. In light of these facts, the case against inherited sin nature is a slam dunk. I've also explained that the Biblical statements showing our proclivity to sin are easily understood when we consider the addictive nature of sin. This viewpoint leaves no unresolved theological issues, and gives guilty sinners no excuse for their behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment