Untwisting Scriptures to Find Freedom and Joy in Jesus Christ: Book 6 Striving, Dying to Self, and Life will be published on December 3rd.
In writing about “daily dying to self,” which isn’t in the Bible, I saw that “sinful nature,” which also isn’t in the Bible, also needed to be addressed.
In “dying to self,” we’re taught to fight against ourselves. The “sinful nature” also teaches us to fight against ourselves.
My friend, there is a better way, a more Biblical and God-honoring way. I expound on it at length in Untwisting Scriptures Book 6, but here is where I specifically talk about the “sinful nature.”
*****
The concept of “two natures” in the Christian—the new nature and the old sinful nature—has been around for a long time. But the New International Version of the Bible, published in 1973 with 450 million copies in print, more or less cemented the idea in the thinking of modern-day believers.
According to this teaching, we are doomed to struggle between the “white dog” of the divine nature in which God has been pleased to allow us to partake (2 Peter 1:4) and the “black dog” of the old sinful nature, still present and very active in the life of the believer, hell-bent on sin.
But the Bible doesn’t teach that we have a sinful nature, not anywhere. And that’s critically important.
What the Bible does teach is that we have “flesh” (sarx in the Greek). Many people, including the NIV translators, have thought that “flesh” means “sinful nature.” But many others have disagreed for decades. I would be one of those.
Recently, when our Bible study group was studying Galatians, my husband Tim noticed something neither of us had noticed before: the connection between the word “flesh” and the concept of “weakness.” Not sin, directly. But weakness, which will lead to sin if not empowered by the Spirit.
Now consider. Galatians highlights the contrast between the “flesh” and the “Spirit.” Throughout Galatians, Paul repeatedly emphasized the weakness of the flesh as opposed to the power of the Spirit. This was not about that initial turning to the Lord. It was about the ongoing life of pleasing God.
“Living in the flesh” in Galatians means a believer is trying to lead a spiritual life through human determination (which is weak) rather than by the ongoing work of God’s Spirit.
That’s the emphasis of this epistle.
But if the word “flesh” is rendered “sinful nature,” as the NIV did for so many years, then we completely lose this concept of “weakness” that seems inherent to the idea of “flesh,” and we can fall into thinking that we will never be free from sin, ever in this life, even though the Lord has told us in Romans that we are.
What does it mean?
From my study of “flesh” throughout the New Testament, here is my conclusion so far as to what it can mean. The context usually makes obvious which meaning to apply.
- Physical heritage, especially Jewish physical heritage.
- The natural physical body, especially the surficial part. (Circumcision, which takes place in the “flesh,” then connects this meaning back with meaning #1.)
- Weak human nature, the seat of human desires and decisions, which are not always sinful. However, in weakness these desires and decisions can easily and naturally go astray in one of two ways:
- Pursuing righteousness through self-effort (which initially feels like strength, but without the wisdom of the Spirit, we don’t see that this “strength” is really weakness and we are 100% destined to fail). This connects with the circumcision of #2.
- Pursuing passions and desires, with a tendency toward increasing lack of restraint over time. (This can also initially feel like strength or “power,” but it is deceitful and will lead to bondage.)
- The pursuits of #3 being carried out to their logical conclusions, either in sinful indulgence or in extreme hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Because both of these are based in the flesh, it’s not uncommon to find both of these in the same person.
I’ll never forget when in 1999 the realization of #4 came upon me as I was studying Galatians that time around. This was way before I began to understand abuse in the church, but when I did, the foundational understandings of Scripture helped everything make sense.
Some of Tim’s thoughts from our Galatians study
This is from a paper my husband Tim wrote on the topic:
This question has been on my mind for some time. It began with pondering whether a Christian retains a “sin nature” after conversion—leaving a believer with two natures that constantly battle each other (the good dog vs. bad dog analogy).
The only biblical “support” I found for this idea was in Romans 7, where Paul seems to express that he can’t do what he genuinely wants to do—please God. However, this interpretation is an error stemming from a lack of context, compounded by the NIV’s translation of the word “flesh” as “sin nature.”
The context of these verses suggests that Paul is describing a life that is lived in the weakness of the flesh, which he is teaching against, rather than his own condition, which he describes in Romans 8.
How far and how fast will someone follow a path of sin? It is certainly not the same for everyone. It is also clear from God’s revealed standard of justice that not all sins have equal weight.
Yes, all humans will sin and fall short of God’s glory. However, the teaching that all humans are entirely opposed to God—our hearts being idol factories, even those transformed by the power of God’s Spirit (which is clearly stronger than our flesh)—is unbiblical.
Practically speaking, such teaching is a form of abusive guilt manipulation and a denial of the power of the gospel.
Voices of others
I also appreciated finding others who have written on this topic. Here are a few.
[In Romans] Paul is not speculating about the existence of some depraved nature that we all have resulting from the fall, a nature that Jesus himself did not share. On the contrary . . . Jesus himself shared this sarx—this source of all desires—in order that when he was crucified, it meant a victory over the desires of that flesh (chief among which is the desire not to die).
As such, the flesh no longer requires an external law to hem it in and restrain its desires—it has died and is now raised to new life, the life governed by the Spirit. But this whole scheme is all shot to pieces if Jesus did not share the same sarx as all of us (hence 1 John’s very strong statements to that effect). — from Jason Staples, “The ‘Sinful Nature’ Translation Dilemma and the Upcoming NIV Revision.”
*****
The distinction [between flesh and spirit] is really between the urges that come as a result of being embodied versus the rational, spiritual faculties that should govern those drives and desires. — comment on the above article, here.
*****
A better way to speak of the power of sin comes directly out of Paul. He speaks of the flesh and its passions and desires. By using such language, we can speak accurately about sin and also discover concrete ways to defeat sin since we will know what it is.
Speaking of a sinful nature as such can often obscure sin’s real power by making it sound like a dualistic force that we have to fight in a battle like in the ancient teaching of Manichaeism. — from Wyatt Graham, “Do We Have a Sinful Nature? Better to Say, We Have Passions And Desires of the Flesh”
*****
I prefer not to say we have two natures if by that one means: a sinful and redeemed nature. I prefer to say that the Spirit renews our nous (mind) so that we can recognize and conquer the passions that lie within the flesh. — comment on the above article, here.
*****
Why is this point so important? Because it goes to the very heart of the Gospel about what really happened when Jesus died on the cross for us. We died with him. It goes to the core of who you really are inside. Are you both a sinner and a saint? Or, are you a saint who sometimes sins? According to Romans 6, you are a saint who sometimes sins.
When we teach this truth to people and they embrace it, we’ve literally watched God change them. Why? The truth always sets you free! Will you believe the truth today so you can live freer in your own life? — from Mark Maulding, Grace Life International, “Do Christians Have a Sinful Nature?”
The implications of this change in thinking are profound.We do not have to be slaves to sin. We can indeed be free from sin. We don’t have to keep fighting, striving, dying, and struggling. We can rest in the complete salvation and finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
More, of course, in my upcoming book, Untwisting Scriptures #6 Striving, Dying to Self, and Life.
In the comments below I invite you to post any Scriptures that have been used to teach you that we have a “sinful nature.” I may have already addressed them on this website or in one of my books. If not, I’ll plan to address them in the comments or perhaps make a whole new article (or book chapter!) out of them.
God bless you, and I pray that all of us who are His redeemed children will live in the fullness of His Spirit and His truth.
In Celebrate Recovery’s Twelve Steps and Their Biblical Comparisons, Step 1 reads: We admitted we were powerless over our addictions and compulsive behaviors, that our lives had become unmanageable. The corresponding Bible verse is: “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” (Romans 7:18 NIV)
Yes, as you observed, that’s the old NIV, which translated the word “sarx” as “sinful nature” when it should be “flesh.” The flesh, not empowered by the Spirit of God, is unable to walk in God’s ways. The whole book of Galatians expounds on this at length.
Exactly. I come from the lineage of AA, and I believe in the disease model of addiction. Therefore, it was always difficult for me to wrap my mind around the “sinful nature” of my addiction, as I see it as a disease, just as the DSM-5 classifies it. Additionally, when comforting a family who has tragically lost a loved one, such a their child for example, to the disease of addiction, I have found it impossible to reconcile the “sinful nature” of the disease, when the family is honestly asking where their loved one is spending eternity. If one passed away from lung cancer with a cigarette in their mouth, or from diabetes due to mismanagement of their glucose intake, am I to tell them that their loved one isn’t resting in Heaven with the Lord? This changed my entire perspective on addiction, so why should we apply this ideology to one thing and not the spiritual malady of pride, arrogance, fear, dishonesty, etc? We all die in some kind of sin. None are immune, only the Perfect One was.
Thank you for your insight!
Well, we don’t die in sin if we’re in Christ. I do talk about this more in my upcoming Untwisting Scriptures book.
Jeremiah 17:9 “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” I’m sure there is a context to this, but it’s always used to shore up the “sin nature” trope.
Goodness yes, that one has a context. I addressed this one in chapter 8 of Untwisting Scriptures Book #3.
That makes sense! I’m so glad that God’s power shown in salvation is so much stronger than some church circles seem to have you believe!!
Amen!
It was a bad idea for Christians to act like St. Augustine’s writings(before becoming a Christian, he was involved with the Manicheans and may not have gotten all the cult’s garbage out of his thinking) were inspired or something. Then again, we’re referring to the same people that interpreted Scripture through the lense of ancient greek philosophy instead of the other way around. The flesh simply being our innate instincts that can be misused for evil makes more sense. It’s not wrong to meet your physical needs, It’s wrong if you meet your needs/desires in a selfish manner that harms others.
Yes, that’s it. Harming others or dishonoring the Lord.
I have been confused by 1 Corinthians 6:9-10… it’s not uncommon for people I know to have been introduced to porn, alcohol or some other type of addiction as a pre-teen. Knowing what we know about trauma and addiction, and what I know to be true of God’s character, I have trouble reconciling the kind of pain and addiction of a “drunkard” who struggles with the ups and downs not “inheriting the kingdom.” Does anybody have any insight or recommended resources for deeper study? The “sinful nature” makes it seem like a hopeless battle, a life of torture followed by condemnation. Addiction is common where I live- it’s not unusual to call in an overdose on my way home from the grocery store.
I’m so sorry, Kristen. This is very heavy. Those with extreme childhood trauma are in my life as well, and struggling with addictions like what you mentioned is very often a part of the aftereffect. I believe the difference between what makes a person “wicked” (1 Cor 6:9) or not is whether the person embraces the sin or wants to be freed from it. Being freed from it can certainly be a long and difficult process, but the heart desire is what makes the difference.
This quotes several scriptures
https://www.gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html
If you’d like to have a discussion of any of those, let me know which ones.
This is a fantastic site to see what mainstream evangelicals believe- but the theology is often a mess!
Thank you for attacking this concept head-on!!
The concept of the flesh being evil so permeated my very being for so long that I severely disdained my physical body, thinking its desires were sinful. I’ve been dissociating from my body for years- with some catastrophic effects.
Thank you for calling this out!!
I appreciate the work you do in this realm as well, Amy!
One passage that describes our inherent unrighteousness is Romans 3:8-18. We are under the “power of sin” until we become righteous by Christ. We can do nothing good in ourselves. If this is not being sinful “by nature” in other words, naturally sinful, then how do you rightly interpret this passage? It doesn’t use the term “by nature” but it describes people as inherently doing evil not doing good. Romans 6:14 says sin is our master.
Do you mean we don’t start out with a sinful nature in our natural man but that we start with something like a neutral nature, neither sinful nor good? If we don’t start out with a sinful nature, then why does God talk about our selves being set free from the law of sin?
What underlying issue do you have with the theology of a sinful nature that needs redeeming?
Perhaps a key phrase in that passage is in Romans 3:9 “both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;”
I think when people read that word “sin” they may think “innate badness,” but really this word means something more like “going astray (so as to not receive the inheritance).” This would happen because without the power of the Spirit, our weak flesh is drawn away by the world and the devil.
Through the rest of this passage in Romans, Paul quotes a psalm, one that I cited in Untwisting Scriptures Book 1 (about bitterness). When weak human nature goes astray, it naturally will go deeper and deeper into sin, unless rescued and redeemed by the Lord.
I don’t see this Romans passage as teaching that “badness” is inherent; only that “weakness” is inherent. And that weakness, unless redeemed and strengthened by the Lord, will be pulled down by the world and the devil.
Romans 6:14 actually says that sin shall NOT have dominion over you.
I believe all people need to be set free from the “law of sin” that will pull a weak human nature down into sin if it isn’t strengthened by the Spirit. Romans 6 teaches that we believers are free from sin.
“What underlying issue do you have with the theology of a sinful nature that needs redeeming?” I’m not sure I understand this question. I’m only observing here that the Bible doesn’t teach the “sinful nature.”
What about putting off the old self? And what is earthly in you. Like in Colossians 3 and put on …
And 2 Corinthians 5:17 the old is passed away…is this the weak self?
I appreciate your approach to these things and making me think
Putting off the old and putting on the new, in Ephesians 4. Here it is:
17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
This is a beautiful example of how sinfulness wasn’t inherent, in the Ephesians’ “nature,” since the old self could be put off.
I believe a natural reading of 2 Corinthians 5:17 would be that the old way of life is gone, and a new way of life has come. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” Salvation through Jesus Christ has the power to be transformative, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Interesting. I have always been taught that sin is separation and disobedience to God’s commands, such as Genesis 3
I have heard “there is none good, not one,” quoted over and over.
Romans 3:10-12
This truth doesn’t conflict with the concept of not having a sin nature. I’m not saying the Bible teaches we’re naturally good. Only that badness isn’t inherent. What is inherent is weakness.
Luke 9:23
“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”
This verse was used to teach that we must “crucify” our sinful “flesh,” which of course was that “sin nature.”
Thank you for this article.
Yes, that verse is addressed at LENGTH in my upcoming Untwisting Scriptures book!
Your observation about flesh being representative of weakness (not sin) reminds me of when Jesus said “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” He was talking to his disciples, who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, so he meant their spirits, presumably the part of us that is supposed to reign over our desires and restrain sin, like Cain was called to do but didn’t…
Also, I love how you point out that JESUS HAD THE SAME FLESH AS US, so it couldn’t be inherently sinful. This is so obvious and it’s absurd how everyone I’ve talked to about this would rather hold to outlandish rationalizations to mitigate their cognitive dissonance than just admit Augustine, and everyone who followed him in this line of thinking, was wrong.
The flesh is inherently weak, not inherently sinful, clears it all up. This is how Jesus could be made like his brethren in every respect and also was able to be sinless.
***
Thinking out loud…
If our spirit is what is reigning our flesh, keeping it from sin (or not), then it makes sense why Jesus was able to keep from sinning while we inevitably do, because His Spirit, being God, is far more powerful than our spirits, especially once we submit to sin and become enslaved to it. God giving us His Spirit is what enables us to resist sin like Jesus did.
Is that right?
One of the pushbacks to the idea that Jesus had the same flesh as us and that our flesh isn’t inherently sinful, is the question, how could Jesus resist sin and remain sinless while no other person ever has? The different spirits within us would make sense of that, I think.
Good thoughts, and yes to all. In fact, “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” was for sure part of the list Tim made of all the Scriptures that linked “flesh” with “weakness.”
Love your observations about Jesus. Of course Tim also pointed out that Adam sinned without having a “sin nature,” which is another issue that’s difficult for those who say our sins come from our inherent core sinfulness.
Isaiah 64:6 was used often in my church to enforce the idea we’re born with sinful natures. Even our good deeds could never measure up to God’s perfect standards. It often made me feel my faithful effort to please God and heartfelt deeds of kindness weren’t ever good enough. I was still a filthy rag. My long history of trauma and shame compounded that belief.
I’m so grateful I escaped the toxic theology that separated me from the love of God. I’m struggling with my faith journey because of spiritual abuse, but I still know Jesus.
You are precious in His sight, my friend. I hope the upcoming book, which confronts teachings like these, will be of encouragement to you.
This is a very interesting, new idea for me! I spend a good portion of my days thinking about how to best parent my toddler daughter, and observing her behaviors. This idea of inherent weakness vs badness I think could be a profound mindset shift for parents…
What about David saying “surely I was brought forth in iniquity, in sin did my mother conceive me.” Ps 51:5 Some versions say “sinful at birth.”
I have in recent years be of the opinion that we inherit a nature bent toward badness, not necessarily bad in and of itself. Ie, infants and small children that die go to heaven, classified as “innocents.”
Maybe that’s close to where you’re at. I haven’t thought of it in a sense of being bent in weakness toward badness.
I wonder if these two thoughts can be found together in the context of Hebrews 12. At the end of the passage speaking of the Lord’s discipline and the analogy of parental discipline, there is the exhortation to strengthen that which is weak (v. 12). I haven’t seen this before. What do you think?
Yes, I’m familiar with the Psalm 51:5 argument for the sinful nature. I’ve also heard two alternative views. One is that David’s mother was indeed in sin; that David was conceived out of wedlock. I read that this view is held by a number of orthodox Jews (who have pointed out that David’s mother was never named in the Scriptures).
I also read a scholarly opinion that this is an example of hyperbole, of which there are many in the Scriptures. After all, why would David be talking about his sinful nature at a time when he is confessing his sins against Bathsheba and Uriah? It would almost sound like he’s coming up with an excuse. But if he’s simply bemoaning his wicked deeds, it would be natural, especially in an Eastern culture like this one, to use exaggeration like this.
Since our three-year-old granddaughter visits with us weekly, Tim and I do have opportunities even now to think about how this perspective might play out in child raising. Considering that young children in their extreme immaturity have no understanding of long-range plans, no understanding about benefits to the larger society, and considering that children’s emotional control has pretty close to zero development, of course children need wise adults to give them boundaries and help them regulate (offering empathy and co-regulation). And we want to point them to the Lord Jesus, who through His death and resurrection offers us entrance into His Kingdom.
Because children are born weak, and because “the world” and “the devil” are absolute realities in our world, turning away from God for fleshly lusts is simply going to be a thing. We want our children to know the Lord and be strong in the Spirit. But I don’t want to see “sin at our very core” when I believe the Bible doesn’t teach that.
It’s intriguing that you mention the “strengthen what is weak” in Hebrews 12. I’m not sure that this passage is connected with what we’re talking about here, but it’s part of a larger passage that I’ve wanted to study for a while and understand better.
This article is really causing me to think!
Here’s a bit of what I’m piecing together right now, followed by some verses I memorized in AWANA and verses heard more recently to prove how “bad” mankind is from conception. (I’m struck with how often teaching focuses on how “bad” we are … even this sample AWANA lesson says “you don’t deserve salvation”…chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.awana.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DiscoveryOfGrace_SampleLesson_2.1-pages.pdf)
I grew up learning we had a sin nature. I remember there being a minor teaching about an age of accountability/understanding. That never made sense to me because who determines what that age is? It was very subjective and a little too open to opinion.
In the last few years, I was exposed to a church leader who began studying Jonathan Edwards (sinners in the hands of an angry God became a loooong Sunday School series on the wrath of God and His wrath toward all mankind). This leader came to believe that a sin nature was present from conception. So he presented that if a baby died in the womb, the baby would go to hell. The reasoning seemed to be that death is a result of sin, so if a baby dies that is evidence that the baby was sinful. (Can they also argue that animals have a sin nature since they die?)
I really struggled with this teaching because it seemed to me that if we went very far down this path of thinking then abortion would be permissible. Are they saying that baby was a sinner so death was only natural, maybe also deserved?
I think God’s wrath became such a heavy a focal point with this leader and others that they forgot that God’s nature is not one dimensional. I just read your Book 3, chapter 3 with my study group and was struck by how nuanced God is – showing up in individual circumstances exactly as He needed for that situation. He doesn’t show up as a wrathful, vengeful God in every situation. But, these leaders sure interpret Scripture from a position that God is out to get us.
Okay! You asked for verses … here are some with off the top of my head paraphrases:
Genesis 8:21 – the intent of heart is evil from youth
Job 15:14 – how can a man be pure/righteous
Psalm 14:2-3 – all have turned away, no one does good
Psalm 51:5 – conceived in sin
Proverbs 22:15 – foolishness in the heart of the child
Ecclesiastes 9:3 – hearts are full of evil
Jeremiah 17:9 – heart is deceitful and desperately wicked
Romans 5:12 – all have sinned (being human from conception = sinner)
Ephesians 2:3 – by NATURE deserving of wrath
Thank you for your thoughts, and yes, it’s so important to seek to understand God’s full nature!
Here are thoughts on the Scriptures you brought forward:
Genesis 8:21
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.”
The world at the time of the flood was wicked and evil beyond our imaginings (Genesis 6:5), with strong influence from the Nephilim, who from my understanding were openly, directly servants of Satan.
Though the people were deeply influenced by this dark evil, even to the point of fully engaging in the evil themselves, I don’t see this verse as indicating that this evil sprang from an innate core of sinfulness. Rather, they were easily swayed toward evil and overtaken by evil until this statement was true of them, perhaps at this time more than any other time in history.
Job 15:14
What is man, that he can be pure?
Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?
This doesn’t indicate being inherently sinful at the core. It only indicates that we can’t be righteous apart from the righteousness of God.
Psalm 14:2-3
The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
They have become corrupt. They weren’t inherently corrupt from the get-go, only easily swayed toward corruption.
Psalm 51:5
Addressed in an earlier comment
Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
Children are foolish, for sure. They don’t know how to make wise decisions. This isn’t about innate wickedness at the core.
Ecclesiastes 9:3
But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him.
It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath.
This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
You know, I’ve always been nonplussed by Ecclesiastes. Even when I read that passage right there, I think, “That man was depressed.”
Maybe the hearts of the people HE knew were full of evil, but we do know that even at that time there were some people who loved the Lord and wanted to follow after righteousness. So I think he was using hyperbole, possibly influenced by depression.
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
I know the KJV says “desperately wicked,” but I’m using the ESV for all the quotations here.
My KJV-only background mocked the switch from “desperately wicked” to “desperately sick,” because it seemed to minimize the inherent core wickedness those authors wanted to believe in. But the online tool I’m using (blueletterbible.org) indicates that this Hebrew word is most often translated “incurable,” with the meaning of “weak, sick, frail, feeble.” (Other places this same Hebrew word is used are Job 34:6, Jer 15:18, Jer 30:12, Jer 30:15, and Mic 1:9.)
This would actually fit with what I’ve offered. And yes, the heart is deceitful, in the sense that it will easily be swayed toward sin and will offer rationalizations for that. We absolutely do need regeneration! But this is not the same as saying that we are inherently wicked at the core.
And just as a side note, this verse is regularly used against Christians, that the REDEEMED heart is “desperately wicked.” Whether or not we have a “sin nature” can be discussed and debated, but that particular application of this verse is perversion, because the redeemed heart is a new creation. Old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. (Another example of hyperbole, by the way.)
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
This says that all have sinned, not that all are inherently sinful at their core. There is a difference—I’m contending that sin happens because human nature is weak and easily led astray.
Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
“By nature” = “by the nature of things.” Or “this is the way things are.” Indicating inevitability.
(Sample sentence: “By nature [the nature of things], new temptations designed to lead us away from God will attract our curiosity, interest, and possibly desire.”)
“By nature” is a statement of the way things are, not an indication of who or what you are at the core of your being.
A side thought . . .
A Facebook commenter said that my thoughts about “flesh” or “sarx” sound like semantics, that there’s really no difference, ultimately, in whether a human is weak and led into sin or the human is inherently sinful.
I believe there’s a big difference. We’re taught that even after a person is born again into the family of God, even after a person receives the Holy Spirit and is made new, that person is still inherently sinful at the core. I’ve seen the confusion and damage this teaching can cause in the lives of Christians, especially abuse survivors.
In this upcoming book I’m addressing “striving” and “dying to self” from the perspective of Scripture, especially keeping in mind how the Scriptures have been twisted to keep the abused in a place of oppression. I believe that both of these issues are exponentially exacerbated by the “sin nature” teaching.
Hi Rebecca,
I read one of your replies about specific scriptures and wanted to add a possible interpretation on Ephesians 2:1-3 that I came to recently and see what you think of it.
Warren McGrew on the YouTube channel Idol Killer proposed that “by nature” meant these Ephesians cultivated a lifestyle of sin, which is subject to wrath, not that they were born under wrath via sin. The context surely does mention their walking in sin and following the wrong things, which are not things that infants can do. It might be akin to how we would say something becomes “second nature.”
Hope I articulated that well enough.
Rebecca has more than competently added much detail to the questions in these comments. I’m glad to add to particular answers as well, but here I’d like to enlarge upon my journey to the conclusion that humans are not born with a “sin nature”—and most importantly could never retain such a “nature” once they have been redeemed by the power of Jesus Christ (misunderstandings of Romans 7 notwithstanding).
Coming to the perspective this spring, I felt like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress—a great burden falling from my back, rolling away into the farthest reaches of the sea, never to weigh me down again. Sin cannot overpower the Sprit of God which is in me (Romans 8). But the weakness of my flesh—yes, if I rely upon my own “strength”—sin will gain a foothold. However it has no roots in my nature—the core of who I was created to be—an image bearer of God. He created me for himself.
The tipping point for me came in the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:1-14. Please read and meditate upon the passage yourself and be as astounded as the disciples were.
But let’s focus particularly on Jesus’ words in verse’ 10-14:
“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
The statement in verse 14 is a strong argument against “sinful nature.” Their danger is not inherent in being sheep, though that does illustrate their weakness, their dependence.. Instead they may perish from “wandering” (i.e., being distracted). Strong distractions (from the “world” and “enemies”) take advantage of their weakness and foolishness, causing them to stumble into danger and potential death. But it is God’s desire that they be rescued, brought back into the fold. They belong to him.
This is a far cry from the classic misrepresentation of our heavenly Father dangling all of humanity over the open mouth of hell. Jesus does not encourage the continual guilt manipulation and feelings of disapproval that so many churches foster in their attendees’ hearts.
Our loving God is holy and just. He does not condemn us for Adam’s sin. Though that act launched humanity into a cursed world, nowhere does God say it changed our inherited nature–instead it makes our flesh mortal. We were always weak.
Adam sinned without having a “sin nature.” Like him, our flesh is weak—subject to temptation.
Jesus came in the flesh–in that state of weakness–sinless, yet subject to death. He gained the victory over sin and death. He gives life to us by his sacrifice for our own sins against God, and the Spirit gives us power over sin in our lives while we remain.
I’m a rescued sheep. Let me always hear his voice, and follow.
This whole discussion makes me think of what Aquinas had to say about good and evil. He very clearly explained that “evil cannot be a nature.” He saw evil as a deprivation of some perfection. So evil can corrupt what is good, but it is not an essence or entity unto itself. Evil cannot stand on its own two feet, so to speak. It cannot exist on its own, because it is nothing more than a kink, a bend, a twisting of the good. I find this incredibly encouraging! In my own life I have seen that when I trace a lie to its rock bottom, I find a seed of truth that lie corrupted…and that truth sets me free! I agree that we go too far when we attribute a “nature” to sin. As Aquinas wrote, “…nothing can be essentially evil, since evil must always have as its foundation some subject, distinct from it, that is good. And so there cannot be a being that is supremely evil, in the way that there is a being that is supremely good because it is essentially good.” Good and evil are not two equal ends on some cosmic seesaw! And I think that’s important to remember, lest we give evil too much credit. All that God created (including human nature) is good. I know that the fall corrupted it…but the fall didn’t “re-create” it into something evil. It deprived us, but praise God for His grace that lavishly provides for our redemption and restoration in Christ!
Fascinating thoughts, thank you. I sometimes disagree with Aquinas (he’s the Father of Sin Leveling, after all, as my fourth book observes). But I do agree with this take. I’ve long pondered how “darkness” is nothing but “absence of light,” so darkness cannot be an entity unto itself without light being part of the definition. And the thoughts about sin that you’ve mentioned here fit with the concept of “iniquity,” which is literally “twistedness” or “perversion.”
The Greek word hamartia, the word most often used for “sin” in the NT, has a definition of “missing the mark,” which I used to think was God’s law, but I now know is God Himself. Interestingly, this word also has the definition of “losing the inheritance.” So it reminds me far more of the prodigal son than of a marksman trying to hit a target. There is still the yearning for relationship in that.
Interesting. I’ll have to explore what your fourth book says about that. I’ve not heard Aquinas called the “Father of Sin Leveling” before. Although I have noticed he can be accused of lots of things that on closer inspection are not always as simplistic as they seem. And, oh, how I am with you as far as people conflating God’s law with God Himself! This drives me nuts. I honestly think sometimes that there are many Christians who worship the written word in place of the Living Word. I’ve been thinking this week how the Pharisees certainly “loved” the law…but then I think about Jesus’ love for the law and how tightly it was tied to His love for the Father, the law-Giver. It was a relational, not just a rational, love. You can see this relational aspect in David’s love for the law and the law-Giver too throughout the Psalms. On this side of the cross, for those of us who are not under the law but under grace, I think our love for the law finds its zenith in Christ Himself — the very fulfillment of the law, the Living Word…the lens through which we study, interpret, and love His written word. This relational aspect makes all the difference! I was reading an article recently that explained how “beliefs” (mental assent to certain ideas) are one of the weakest foundations for character building, when it comes to how our brains work. The strongest? Love. I know from personal experience that intimacy with Christ has done way more to free me from the tyranny of sin in my life than a pharisaical “love” of the Pentateuch ever could. And I say that as someone who loves the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Scriptures!
So beautiful! Thank you!
Erin, I love what you said…
“ In my own life I have seen that when I trace a lie to its rock bottom, I find a seed of truth that lie corrupted…and that truth sets me free!”
That’s such a beautiful word picture – I want to frame it!
I often feel like I’m adrift in an ocean of lies all around me, and it can be really disheartening, or infuriating, but this perspective is encouraging and motivating to keep fighting for the truth but in the most lovely and gentle way.
2 Peter 1:3
His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His glory and virtue (goodness) … escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust…
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of Him!
He has given us everything we need to live a godly life!
I find that I can rest in that. He has already done this, already made the way. So when the ‘striving’ comes knocking at my door, I can answer that He has made the way to for me to live a godly life.
So thankful.
Beautiful, thank you!
This article has me thinking about IFS. I am just hearing about IFS. I find it odd, spiritually, to confront an “internal family member” (your fear about something or your younger self reacting…) (I may not have it all correct either) and ask the internal family member what they need…or something like that. I think more spiritual warfare is needed. Why give these internal family members power in your life?
I’m not sure how this article relates to IFS? (That’s Internal Family Systems, for those who are unfamiliar with the acronym.)
However, I do want to comment on your thoughts here. Though I’m not a huge fan of IFS, I do know that dissociative identity disorder is a genuine phenomenon that is seen in many cases of extreme complex trauma. When this phenomenon is part of a person’s life, then those “parts of self,” for lack of a better descriptor, do need to be treated more or less as different people, with great compassion.
This is very different from demonization, which is also a real phenomenon calling for spiritual warfare in no uncertain terms. But it’s crucial that the “part of self” be distinguished from the demon. We can’t cast out a part of the person, and if we try to, it can cause significant complications, even significantly hindering the person’s healing.
I agree that in many cases more spiritual warfare is needed. But not against the parts of self. I sometimes describe the phenomenon of having parts of self as having an internal choir. When they’re all functioning well, they’re all singing the same song (a good one). When they’re split off by extreme and extended trauma, it’s as if they’re all singing a different song, or weeping inconsolably, or yelling in your ear, or muttering in the corner, etc.
It’s not that we want them to have power in the person’s life. It’s that we want them to have the healing they need from the Lord Jesus, so that they can rejoin the choir and sing together again.
Thank you for that clarity.
Wow! What a lively discussion. And it shows how pervasive this destructive this mistranslation of a single word has been; and how hard it is to untangle it! Paul is extremely clear that for the Christian, the “old nature” has died, and we have been reborn with a new nature in which sin no longer has dominion.
To go a bit further here, I no longer consider NIV to be a valid study bible. Due to their “thought-for-thought” approach to translating, their theological biases enter the text all the time. And I often see an extremely strong bias for a legal-centric view of spiritual life.
Oh, fascinating, thank you, David. I don’t use it either, but except for this atrocious “sin nature” interpretation-disguised-as-a-translation I hadn’t noticed a legal-centric view. I’d love to hear some of your other observations.
One that comes to mind: When Leviticus is explaining various sacrifices, the translators insert the phrase “as a penalty” in order to give the reader a supposed reason for the sacrifice (5:6; 5:7; 5:15; 6:6). However, none of that exists in the Hebrew. It was added because that is how the translators view the sacrifices. And inserting that phrase distorts the meaning of the sacrifice into a judicial act, basically as a penance or punishment. John Goldengay (Oxford scholar) says that no Judaic sacrifice is connected to punishment. Jacob Milgram (Jewish scholar) would agree.
Oh my WORD, that’s HUGE!!! You probably have that in your book, and I know I need to read it again before writing my next piece in my “Walk Away from the Courtroom” series.
Another: Rom.3:25 NIV ends with “because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” The Greek just says that in his forbearance, God “passed over” sins of the past. Theologically, there could be other reasons for passing over sin, such as (according to Hebrews) it could not be purged from the hearts of people, as it can be under the New Covenant. Changing the words to “punishment” is translator bias.
Ah, these are so great. I for sure want to incorporate them when I get back to my “Walk Away from the Courtroom” series.
I grew up hearing a lot about sin nature and dying to self. It was a core teaching that my childhood church dwelled on.
It was also used to gaslight members to not think for themselves and “trust the leaders with gifts of wisdom” who instructed members to use harsh methods of training young children, infants even, in order to deal with their “sinful nature from birth”.
We were taught that those nagging feelings that questioned the leaders were our sinful rebellious nature and that we were to put those thoughts to death. But even Jesus did stop questions (Samaritan women) becuase questions are often a genuine path to deeper understanding. Also in the passover the Israelites were told to take the lamb home and inspect it, looking for any blemish, before it was accepted as the passover lamb. I think that was metaphor for Jesus; verify trustworthiness, questions welcome.
I believe that God has equipped us with a body and emotions that can warn us of danger, and that those feelings should not just be silenced. It creates a cognitive dissonance when your body tells you something is wrong, but you have to “put to death the rebellious nature” and convince yourself to not question. I don’t believe that approach honors God.
I believe that truth is not afraid of genuine questions, and truth is not coercive by nature.
Also this has a huge impact on teaching healthy relationship consent! And I’m not talking about sexual consent, although this foundational relationship skill eventually transfers into that arena as well, but the ability to listen to our body and honor the signals of discomfort it is giving.
If we believe the flesh/body is inherently evil, then it is hard to listen to it when it tells us “I’m not comfortable around this person” or “I don’t want a hug or kiss right now” or “I’m really tired and just need a break right now”.
We should be able to hear and honor the signals of our body, like the icons on our car info display.
This is not to say our body is the decision maker, but it is a respected signal giver. Imagine the chronic disease, unhealthy relationships, unprocessed grief etc we could avoid if we learned to honour our God given signal systems in our body.
Our draw to sin, especially after being reborn in Christ, is not from our inherently evil nature but from the weakness of our nature.
That shift of perspective acknowledges that we are still prone to wander but our strength comes from Christ’s indwelling and not through beating the sin or evil out of ourselves.
The concept of sin proclivity/weakness is biblical, but does the Bible say we are still evil in our core after coming to Christ, or that our flesh is weak and continues to require connection to the vine and life strength/source in Christ?
I think the second aligns with the other biblical statements of our identity in Christ.
Excellent thoughts, Tiffany! Thank you!
So there’s no ‘sinful nature’, no ‘Old Nature’, no “Old Man”, no ‘sin in the flesh’ (Romans 8:3), no ‘sin nature’ passed on from Adam, no “I was conceived in sin”, no ‘vile bodies’ (Philippians 3:21), on the state of “being human” and weak in terms of impulses, instincts, morally?
The Bible doesn’t ever use the term “sinful nature.” I’m offering the possibility that any Bible teaching that you believe appears to teach a “we are inherently bad at the core of our being” is being read through your grid rather than being taken at face value.
I believe the Bible. Thus all the terms you’re mentioning there that are actually in the Bible, I agree are in the Bible.
Philippians 3:20b-21 says, “we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our *lowly body* [i.e., the translation “vile” does not mean “inherently sinful at the core” but rather “lowly’] to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” That isn’t about sin. It’s about this mortal flesh, this physical body.
Romans 8:3 says that Jesus Christ “condemned sin in the flesh.” That is, He came to earth with a body like ours in order to condemn sin.
I very much believe that the “old man” has been crucified in Christ and the “new man” is the one who is living now. This teaching is one of the ones that eventually led me to understand that an inherent core “sinful nature” that can never be fully eradicated in this life isn’t what the Bible teaches.