The “Sin Nature” -- another look

The words “sin” and “nature” are never used together in Scripture, but their use together has been fairly common in my experience, in talking to other believers and in some books I have read.  That common experience has been that the “sin nature” signifies a disposition within us which is contrary to the moral will of God.   Its also been my experience that it is believed that this sin nature not only exists in the non-believer, but the believer.   However, I have had conversation with those who do not believe the sin nature should be understood in a way that the believer has it.  I’ve also have had conversation with those who believe there is no such thing as a sin nature.

Its possible that I have developed a view about the sin nature that isn’t exactly what others would say about it, but we would still agree that it signifies something with in us that isn’t eradicated when we are “born again” (which I equate to “regeneration”).  Where I might differ with those with whom I am in more agreement with is what the sin nature signifies.   I had a book, that I can’t find, by E. W. Bullinger titled, “Two Natures in the Child of God,” and I’m pretty sure that he equated the sin nature with what Scripture called “the old man.”  I believe that the “old man” has a broader significance than the sin nature, the former referring to our pre-regeneration identity with all its components, while the sin nature is a particular component of that identity.  The other nature in the child of God would be what is commonly called the “new nature” (I would also call it the “spirit”—small “s” because it is not the person of the Holy Spirit, but that which is born of the Holy Spirit through regeneration, see John 3.6b), and that new nature is a component of our new identity, the “new man.”  I should point out that the words “new” and “nature” are never used together in Scripture, but the words ”divine” and “nature” are in Second Peter 1:4, and I would equate the “new nature” and the “divine nature” as long as the divine nature is understood as the communicable attributes of God—those attributes that we can share with God.  

I believe the Doctrinal Statement of the IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America) represents what is common among those who believe that the believer still has the sin nature.   This is under point 8 of their statement:  THE TWO NATURES OF THE BELIEVER:  “We believe that every saved person possesses two natures, with provision made for victory of the new nature over the old nature through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; and that all claims to the eradication of the old nature in this life are unscriptural.”   A lot of Churches and Individuals belong to the IFCA as members, and to be a member, one has to agree with the statement.  So I assume this is a common held belief among “fundamentalists.”   I have said before that if one doesn’t like the terminology of “sin nature,” you can always use different terminology, like “the flesh” or “sin,” instead of “sin nature,” but what if its not just a terminology issue?

It’s been my understanding that the sin nature signifies that component of our being that has an inclination, propensity, or disposition towards the inordinate desires (as I like to refer to them)--those desires that  go outside the moral will of God.   I don’t know if everyone who believes in a sin nature would understand it exactly that way. If they use the sin nature to represent what the Scriptures often calls “the flesh,” then my understanding of that nature can’t be too far off, because the flesh is often used in a way that speaks of those desires which are contrary to the will of God. 

I want to point out that any view of the sin nature can not see it as necessary for sin to happen since Adam and Eve both sinned before they had a sin nature.   The ability to sin did not require a sin nature.  Even if one has a different view of what exactly the sin nature is, that nature is not essential for sinning. 

In my view, the sin nature only makes it easier to sin, because of its inclination.   My understanding has been that before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not have that inclination, but they still had the capacity to sin, because sin is not just the result of an inclination, but a choice to act.  The inclination makes it easier to sin or more of a struggle to resist. 

I think there is a way to talk about inclination and drop the idea of a sin nature.  One could talk about inclination as one thing, and the sin nature as something else.   If we just talk about inclination, we could talk about degrees of inclination, and we can talk about outcomes of inclination when acted upon. 

Adam and Eve may have had some lesser degree of inclination when they chose to disobey God.    If we use the term “the flesh” to refer to even that form of inclination that they had in the beginning, I don’t think their inclination can be understood to the extent the Apostle Paul speaks about concerning the believer in Romans 7.7-25 (Paul speaks of “evil” being “present” with him, and “sin” dwelling in him, in his flesh) or Galatians 5.13-26 (the “flesh” lusts against the “spirit”—in the believer).  Again, it could be Adam and Eve had some lesser degree of inclination which in itself wasn’t evil.    God told them not to eat, and the choice was wrong. It could be like God telling the Hebrews not to eat certain foods (shrimp, pork), and it was just a matter of choosing to obey God or not.  The flesh at this point just can’t seem to have the same significance that Paul gave it.  The flesh just had the inclination to desire something—which in itself isn’t necessarily bad—and the ability was there to make a choice.

We know that the choice they made resulted in consequences.  Something happened to them.  What happened to them after they acted was not just the curses God would place on them and creation later, but a kind of light turned on in their conscience—they saw and understood things differently.   They saw and understood physical nakedness.  They felt a shame with it.     Maybe something more was going on there as well, such as some obsession with their nakedness.  But to be honest, I’m not sure how to best understand all this.  I just know something changed, and it was due to this one act of “sin.”

I don’t know how others understand the beginning of the sin nature—and I’m using “sin nature” here according to that perspective I believe more commonly held (as in the IFCA), but I would say it materialized when Adam and Eve sinned and their “eyes were opened.”   I suppose it was some kind of mutation that became a part of this body we have.  Could it be said that the flesh just took on a newer or increased capacity? 

We could reserve “sin nature” to refer to the new state that resulted, being “death” or being alienated from the life of God (not having eternal life). But I tend to think if the flesh represents that which is contrary to the moral will of God, the terminology of sin nature seems to better speak of the flesh—if sin is it’s nature.  But what if we dropped the terminology of sin nature altogether and just call the consequence of sin spiritual death or alienation from God?  Actually, that’s what I say anyway. I don’t know if it would be helpful to refer to the unsaved condition as the sin nature.  I would prefer to just call it spiritual death or alienation from (the life of) God.

But we could just drop the “sin nature” terminology for that evil inclination within us and just call it “the flesh” or ”sin” within us.  We can call it “sin” because Paul calls the evil present within his flesh the “sin” in Romans 7.20.   He just doesn’t add the word “nature.”

I know that those who reject the idea of a sin nature say that there can’t be one because Christ was made like us, and He did not have one. I don’t think anyone believes Jesus had a sin nature.  And obviously he was not spiritual dead or alienated from God.   This discussion can get real complicated.  How much was Jesus made like us?  

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8.3) and was in all points tempted like us, yet without sin (Hebrews 4.15).   He came into this world with a body and conscience that the consequences of Adam’s sin affected yet not with the consequences of spiritual death and without the degree of inclination associated with the flesh.  If he had that same degree of inclination, he never acted on it (Hebrews 4.15).  But I don’t think he was like Adam was before he sinned in which there was that kind of blindness about the knowledge of good and evil.  And I question his ‘flesh” condition was such that he had that same degree of inclination we have even as believers, of which Paul spoke—which I wrote about earlier.  

If the attempt is to deny the sin nature as the same thing as the “flesh” because Jesus had the flesh like us, I think we still have a problem with how the flesh is spoken about even in the life of the believer.  It’s not just bad memories of what we did in the flesh before we were saved, but the inclination within us that still lusts against the spirit, which we still fulfill.  This condition did not plague Adam before he sinned.  It still plagues us after we are saved.  Was Jesus plagued by this?  I don’t think reassigning the sin nature terminology away from its common use will solve all the issues about the incarnation.  Though Jesus was made like sinful flesh, I’m not sure to what extent his inclinations were like ours.

The believer is said to be a “new creation” (2 Cor 5.17) and to have a “new man”(Eph 4.24; Col 3.10).   My understanding of the sin nature has not been that it represents the entire person—as in “the old man,” or his condition of spiritual death, but only a component (or aspect) of his being.  I could see why some might want to assign the terminology of “sin nature” to one’s unsaved condition but not to one’s saved condition because of the new status of the believer as a “new creation.”  But I don’t think the terminology of “sin nature” is intended to signify all that a person is.  If assigning sin nature (only) to one’s unsaved status is because you think his state or potential state has changed, to something like Adam’s state before he sinned, then you have the problem of those inclinations we wrestle with—not just a problem of bad memories, but actual inclinations.   We can have the ability to not fulfill those inclinations, but they are still there.

Christ was obviously not born into this world alienated from the life of God, but he still had this flesh thing within him, but maybe it was not of the same degree of inclination—which could be like an inherited degree of inclination towards evil (I know this is the first time I suggest this, but since Christ was not the result of a normal human union, so maybe a normal human union produces offspring with an inherited degree of inclination of the flesh).  

Also, what was inherited from Adam and Eve (Romans 5.12) was that alienation from the life of God (death): “by one man, sin came into the world, and death by sin...”  The “sin” here has the definite article in the Greek, and I have understood this “the sin” as the sin nature, and it is because of it that (spiritual) “death” came because of divine judgment.   But could the idea of ‘sin nature” be dropped, and see ‘the sin” as the degree of inclination of the flesh?  And  because of degree of inclination, there is spiritual death—the judgment upon everyone because of this inherited degree of inclination?

How I have understood Romans 5:12 was in light of a sin nature, but maybe there is another way.   I didn’t mention this before, but I haven’t taken the common view of original sin.  I don’t think God placed the guilt of Adam on all of us, resulting in all of us being condemned, but we did inherited a sin nature, which is condemned, and then because of that, we are all spiritual dead (not having eternal life).  But if I don’t call “the sin” in Romans 5:12 the sin nature, then I would have to think of it as the flesh in a certain degree of inclination we inherited, at degree which is condemned (not as the flesh was before Adam sinned, and as Christ’s flesh would have been).

I think one could avoid using “sin nature” as a terminology, but coming to a consensus about how to understand the use of “flesh” may be difficult, since it would have to take into account Adam’s state before and after he sinned and the human state of Christ and the state of the believer (I might add this is not simply a Calvinist verses non-Calvinist issue, since many Calvinists believe there are 2 natures in the child of God, and I know of those who don’t believe this).  And if we don’t use the sin nature to signify the state of the unsaved as spiritual death, consensus on the extent of spiritual death may be difficult, since some take it to the degree of total inability to respond to God and others do not.  But we could just call it spiritual death or alienation from God instead of the sin nature.