does man have a sinful nature? what does the bible say?

Does Man Have A Sinful Nature?

What Does the Bible Say?

Total Depravity

• John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564), a French Reformer taught a theology that was systematized into: T-U-L-I-P

• Calvin’s main work is called: Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536)

• According to Calvin, all men from Adam have been born totally depraved with original sin

Total DepravityICR; Bk. 2; Chap. 1; Para. 5

5. “As Adam’s spiritual life would have consisted in remaining united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the death of his soul. Nor is it strange that he who perverted the whole order of nature in heaven and earth deteriorated his race by his revolt. “The whole creation groaneth,” saith St Paul, “being made subject to vanity, not willingly,” (Rom. 8:20, 22). If the reason is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were made. Therefore, since through man’s fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring. After the heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed, i.e., wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness, impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness. This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much discussion, there being nothing more remote from common apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty, and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or, at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required. This timidity, however, could not prevent the rise of a Pelagius with his profane fiction—that Adam sinned only to his own hurt, but did no hurt to his posterity.”


5. cont. – “Satan, by thus craftily hiding the disease, tried to render it incurable. But when it was clearly proved from Scripture that the sin of the first man passed to all his posterity, recourse was had to the cavil, that it passed by imitation, and not by propagation. The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It was the greatest impudence to deny this. But no man will wonder at the presumption of the Pelagians and Celestians, who has learned from the writings of that holy man how extreme the effrontery of these heretics was. Surely there is no ambiguity in David’s confession, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps. 51:5). His object in the passage is not to throw blame on his parents; but the better to commend the goodness of God towards him, he properly reiterates the confession of impurity from his very birth. As it is clear, that there was no peculiarity in David’s case, it follows that it is only an instance of the common lot of the whole human race. All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God’s sight defiled and polluted. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one,” says the Book of Job (Job 14:4).


8. “But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. (Calvin, in Conc. Trident. 1, Dec. Sess. 5). I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, i.e., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another’s fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another’s sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual’s own sin.”


8. cont. – “And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” (Rom. 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt. Next comes the other point, i.e., that this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames, or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added (this, however, many will by no means concede), that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.”

Total DepravityAnswering the Scriptural ArgumentsAs Set Forth in ICR, Book 2, Chapter 1

• Rom. 8:20,22 – “a curse … extending to all his offspring”

• Psalm 51:5 – “impurity from his birth”

• Job 14:4 – “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”

• Rom. 5:19-21 – “sin and death were brought in by Adam” … “are involved in original sin”

Total DepravityAnswering the Scriptural ArgumentsAs Set Forth in ICR, Book 2, Chapter 1

• 1 Cor. 15:22 – “all are imbued with the taint of sin”

• Eph. 2:3 – “cursed from the womb”

• John 3:6 – “all are by birth vicious and depraved”

• Eph. 4:17,18 – “the understanding is subject to blindness, and the heart to depravity “

Total DepravitySome errors growing out of Total Depravity…

• Infant baptism

• Immaculate conception of Mary (1854)

• Direct operation of the H.S.

• “We’re only human…,” “Weak and often sinning…,” “That’s the way I am…,” etc.

Total Depravity

• It contradicts plain Bible teaching: all men are born upright, not depraved (Eccl. 7:29; Lk. 8:15; Rom. 7:9)

• It contradicts the origin of sin: sin comes from each one sinning, not from Adam (Jas. 1:14-15; Rom. 3:23; 5:12)

Total Depravity

• It contradicts the definition of sin: sin is an act, not an inheritance (Jas. 4:17; 1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17; note 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6)

• It contradicts the responsibility for sin: each individual is responsible, not one’s parents (Ezek. 18:19-20; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:20)

Total Depravity

• It contradicts the consciousness of sin: guilt of sin is known by conscious violation of law, not at birth (Rom. 7:7)

• It contradicts the plan of salvation: all men have a free will to accept or reject the gospel invitation (Rev. 22:17)

“Sinful Nature”in the New International Version

What does the Greek word sarx mean? (Thayer, 569-571)1. prop. flesh … of both men and beasts2. the body … signifying the material or substance of the living body

a. univ.b. used of natural or physical origin, generation, relationshipc. the sensuous nature of man … without any suggestion of depravity

3. a living creature4. mere human nature, the earthly human nature apart from divine

influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God


What does the Greek word sarx mean? (Abbott-Smith, 402-403)1. Flesh

a. prop. of the soft substance of the animal bodyb. of the whole substance of the body

2. As in Heb. Idioma. of a living creatureb. of natural origin or relationship

3. Of the physical nature as subject to sensation and desirea. without any ethical disparagementb. in ethical sense, esp. in Pauline Epp., of the flesh as the seat and vehicle of sinful desires


What does the Greek word sarx mean? (Liddell-Scott, 630)1. flesh; all the flesh or muscles in the body2. flesh, human nature, human kind


What does the Greek word sarx mean? (BAG, 743-744)1. lit. of the material that covers the bones of a human or animal

body2. the body itself, viewed as substance3. a man of flesh and blood4. human or mortal nature, earthly descent5. corporeality, physical limitations, life here on earth6. The external or outward side of life7. In Paul’s thought esp., the flesh is the willing instrument of sin8. The sarx is the source of sexual urge, without any suggestion of

sinfulness connected w. it


What does the Greek word sarx mean? (Moulton, 363-364)1. flesh; the human body; human nature, human frame; kindrid;

consanguinity, lineage; humanity, human beings; the circumstances of the body, material condition, mere humanity, human fashion; flesh as the seat of passion and frailty, Ro. 8:1,3,5, et al; carnality; materiality, material circumstances, as opposed to the spiritual; a material system or mode


Summary of Sarx…1. Sarx can have different meanings based upon the

context (the criticism of “sinful nature” is not because it differs in wording from “flesh”)

2. Sarx, when referring to sin within mankind refers to the place where sin resides, or the instrument of sin without suggesting original sin, depraved nature, or “sinful nature”, i.e., a sinful nature inherited from Adam that makes one prone to sin, also known as “Adamic nature”

“Sinful Nature”in the New International Version*

“Sinful nature” is found 22 times in the NIV…

• Rom. 7:5,18,25• Rom. 8:3,4,5,8,9,12,13,• Rom. 13:14• 1 Cor. 5:5• Gal. 5:13,16,17,19,24• Gal. 6:8

• Eph. 2:3• Col. 2:11,13• 2 Pet. 2:10• Note also 2 Pet. 2:18

(“sinful human nature”)* The New Living Translation has

“sinful nature” in the same places (except Rom. 13:14; 2 Pet. 2:10,18), plus Rom. 8:6,7; 1 Cor. 3:3; Eph. 4:22; and Col. 3:9


• In the 1973 edition of the NIV, “flesh” was not placed in the marginal footnotes

• In the 1978 edition of the NIV, “flesh” was placed in the marginal footnotes

• In the 1984 edition of the NIV, “flesh” was placed in the marginal footnotes (The NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan)


Some NIV inconsistencies with sarx:

• Sarx is found 3 times in Rom. 8:3, but only in the first instance is it translated “sinful nature”

• Sarx is found 10 times in Ephesians, but only in Eph. 2:3 is it translated “sinful nature”

• Sarx is found 9 times in Colossians, but only in Col. 2:11,13 is it translated “sinful nature”


Did “sinful nature” come from Calvinist theology?

• The Executive Secretary of the NIV Committee was Edwin H. Palmer who defended classical Calvinism in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism.

• The majority of the 110 on the translation committee came from denominational backgrounds with Calvinistic theologies (see http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/ translators/index.php)

quote taken from Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions, International Bible Society, 1995, Kenneth L. Barker, p. 54


Answering Objections…1. “Sarx has different connotations in different

contexts” (see Accuracy Defined: An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions, Kenneth L. Barker, 1995)

Response: Yes, but it never means a “sinful nature” that is inherited and prone to sin, as used by Calvinists. The word “sinful” is not inherent in sarx, just as “sin” is not inherent in flesh. “Sinful nature” is a doctrinal [denominational] term, not a true definition of sarx.


Answering Objections…Response: Had the H.S. wanted to reveal the idea of

“sinful nature,” he had two Greek words with which to do so; hamartion (sinful) and phusis (nature). However, he chose sarx.


Answering Objections…2. “Should one be inclined to find the doctrine of Original

Sin, he will do so whether the translation is ‘flesh,’ ‘sinful nature,’ or sarx. The doctrine of Original Sin is not necessarily inherent in the translation ‘sinful nature’ (Don Jackson, “The Theology of the NIV,” Restoration Quarterly, 27:1984: 208-220)

Response: The words ‘sinful nature’ point the reader to the classic use of ‘nature’ by Calvin himself and Calvinists. ‘Sinful nature’ was not used prior to the NIV.


Psalm 51:5

“Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV, 1978)

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV, 1984)


quote taken from Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: An NIVTranslator Answers Your Questions, International Bible Society,1995, Kenneth L. Barker, p. 21

Select Bibliography of WorksCritical of the NIV

Greeson, Wayne. “Why Not the NIV?” www.padfield.com 2003.Jackson, Wayne J. The Bible Translation Controversy. Courier Publications, 2002.Jenkins, Ferrell. “The New International Version’s Translation of Sarx,” Guardian of Truth (January 1, 1987), p. 26-28.Miller, E.L. “The New International Version and the Prologue of John,” Harvard Theological Review (July-October 1979), p. 310.Rader, Donnie V. and Dorris Rader. “The International Version (Or Pseudo-Version),” Searching the Scriptures (August, 1984), p.

174-183.Marin, Robert. Accuracy of Translation. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989.Radmacher, Earl D. and Zane C. Hodges, The NIV Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at a Popular Translation. Redencion Viva, 1990Skilton, John H. “Review of the NIV New Testament.” Westminster Theological Journal 37/2 (Winter 1975) pp. 256-265Wallace Jr., Foy E. An Evaluation of the New International Version. Foy E. Wallace Jr., 1976.

does man have a sinful nature? what does the bible say?

Documents

original sin slide

common sin

holy man

total depravity icr

total depravity john

order of nature

confession of impurity

sinful nature