Sin Nature: Acquired, Not Inherited

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.

Calvinism poisons everything

While the title might sound like hyperbole, I'm coming to realize that Calvinism poisons everything important in Christianity. Even worse, this poison has spread even to those who would not self-identify as Calvinists. As I go through points, I'll offer some Scriptural support to direct your mind. However, my point here is not to refute various elements of Calvinism, only to show its poisonous effects. I am planning to soon write an article that is more of a direct refutation.

As you read, please think about the consequences of this doctrine that I'll be pointing out. Examine whether you might have some of this poison in your theological system in some way, however subtle. Even if you are not a Calvinist, I would be surprised if you aren't in some way affected by their theology. For those who claim Calvinism, look at the consequences of this theology. If it damages or contradicts things that are so obviously true from Scripture, doesn't that imply that your system is wrong? I'll show exactly how in an article in the near future.

God – To know God is surely the most important thing for everyone. Yet, Calvinism presents a heavily distorted view of the creator. The Calvinist's deity is arbitrary. Some he saves from the fires of Hell. Others, he declines to save, but takes pleasure in watching them burn. Calvinists then have the audacity to claim that this deity “loves all”, is “full of mercy” and “is no respecter of persons”, things that are indeed true of God, but not the arbitrary God of Calvinism. Their concepts stand in clear contrast to the God of the Bible who constantly stretches out his hands toward rebels and who weeps over the lost, offering forgiveness if only they repent (Isaiah 65:2, Matt. 23:37). Of Calvin's arbitrary God, Dave Hunt asks in the title of his book on Calvinism, “What love is this?”. One could ask the same of the other qualities of God that Calvinism corrupts – that God is longsuffering and full of mercy, to name a few.

Salvation – If you look at the teachings of Calvinism in a way that is logically consistent, you must conclude that the salvation of an individual does not hinge on them exercising repentance to God and faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, but upon an eternal decree of God. In other words, if you are elect, God will cause you to repent and believe. If you are not elect, you have no chance to repent and believe the Gospel. This is a severe corruption of the requirements of salvation. To the Calvinist, Christ died only for the elect and salvation will come whether you intend to respond or not. Biblically, Christ died for the sins of the world and God calls every individual to respond, with no indication that something might unconditionally hinder such a response. (Ezek. 18:4-32, 1 Tim. 4:10, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 9:13, and many more) Logically then, the Calvinist believes that someone may simply wait around for God to save them. However, the Bible calls for the individual to actively repent and believe. This contrast is shown most clearly in the life of Charles Finney. In his evangelistic efforts, he preached to people in Calvinistic churches who were just waiting around for God to regenerate them. Finney's revival earned him the ire of Calvinist leaders who lied and misrepresented him during his life, and even worse after his death. Misunderstanding of salvation can lead to gospel preaching with an open-ended response, which leads to false conversion and hell. In contrast, Scripture strictly calls men to repentance and faith.

Grace - Simply defined, grace is unmerited favor. In the context of the Gospel, this means that Christ died for our sins even though we didn't deserve it. God extends to us an offer of love, forgiveness, adoption, reward, and eternal life to his enemies. This is a beautiful thing. However, Calvinists are uncomfortable with the idea that man can even accept this offer through repentance and faith. Therefore, grace is not so much an kind attribute of God, but more of a mystic force that God irresistably zaps you with. To a monergist, grace is not only unmerited favor, but also unwanted compulsion. This is because, in their mind, you couldn't possibly desire God, so he has to force you to love him with this mystic force they call grace. Obviously, this is a strange way to use the word 'grace', and an even stranger way to talk about God.

Sin / repsonsibility – According to the Calvinist, all things have been ordained by God. Every single thing that happens was planned by God. Even sin. The most evil of Calvinists will flat out admit that God authored sin in some way. What a terrifying accusation! Sin was not intended by God in any way, but was allowed and thoroughly dealt with in God's big plan. A lesser manifestation of this is those who say “oh well, everything is in God's hands” when something happens. Now, I want to be careful here because it is true that everything is in God's hands, in the sense that he is watching with interest and can intervene at any moment. The Christian can indeed take great comfort that God is watching over their life. However, this does not mean that everything is caused by God. When something happens it might have been caused by any number of free moral agents – God, demons, or ourselves. For example, if you get fat and have health problems, it's probably because you ate too much ice cream, not because the devil is after you, nor because God thought it would be good for you to have heart disease. However, we can be sure that whatever happens, God is paying attention and can intervene whenever he feels necessary, though He often lets us experience the consequences of our sin (and even things we didn't bring upon ourselves) so that we can learn a lesson. To rephrase it succinctly, God is in control, but that in no way negates or diminishes your responsibility in any circumstance, and your actions certainly have consequences. If you've ever thought “Oh well, God has it under control, I don't really need to try hard.” then your concept of responsibility has been poisoned by Calvinism.

Sovereignty - Obviously this is very much related to my comments above on sin and responsibility. It's worth specifically pointing out though, that Calvinists throw the word sovereign around like a comma, but they don't use it correctly most of the time. Look in any English dictionary, sovereignty is a word that describes position or authority. However, Calvinists use the word to describe what is better called 'total active control' – the idea that God is not merely in control of the world, but is actually controlling everything, and we are little more than puppets on his strings. In discussing this issue, it's critical to understand there's a big difference between “God is in control” and “God is actively controlling everything”. If God is actively controlling everything, then sin must have been part of His plan too. This would imply that God is the author of sin, a terrible accusation. However, if you properly understand sovereignty, it's easy to see that a king may be "in control" of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean that he approves of everything that happens.

Inherited sin nature – This error in particular is not localized to Calvinists, but has infected most non-calvinists as well. Historically, this doctrine seems to start with Augustine, who was the first the systematize it into what would become the catholic church (Irenaeus possibly tended in this direction, but he didn't take it as far as Augustine). When the reformers separated from the catholic church, they kept the doctrine of original sin, along with infant baptism and other false doctrines of Rome. Sin nature has remained a part of evangelical “orthodoxy” ever since, despite a complete lack of Biblical support (unless you count an ambiguous line from a poem, or are intent to misread Romans 5). Of course, Calvinists take the game to a whole new level by developing a systematic theology that revolves around the idea of not only sin nature, but total depravity/inability which affects salvation as described above. Though many non-calvinists rightly reject the T in TULIP, they hold to “total depravity light”, a poison which has persisted mainly due to tradition and given many a sinner a great excuse for his sin.

Evangelism – If you believe that God has already chosen who he will save and who he won't and there's nothing anyone can do about it, how could that not effect evangelism? At the very least, it takes away the motivation. Historically, some Calvinists have recognized this and have completely rejected the idea of preaching to the lost. Modern Calvinists usually have some sort of token “missions” program in their church. However, each one that I've seen is not about finding lost people and preaching the gospel, but it's about finding “less educated” Christians to convert to Calvinism. I dare say that, to these, Calvin is more important than Christ. For non-Calvinists, I still can't help but wonder if the coldness toward evangelism exhibited by nearly all churches is due to some remnant of this poisonous thought that “If God wants to save the heathen, he'll do it without us”.

How did you do? Have you found any remnants of poison in your system? If so, try to identify the source of the poison. Perhaps a popular preacher that you listen to? Piper, MacArthur, Baucham, Mohler, Sproul, Washer, Driscoll, and many more carry this poison to varying degrees. Maybe you already knew that and thought you were listening with discernment, but if you've realized that it's affecting you, it's probably best to take a break altogether. Instead, fill yourself with pure living water that comes from the Scripture. Set aside the books and commentaries for a while, and just feast on the Bible directly. This is a good rememy for any theology that ails you.