The Sin Nature

[Don]

The Recent; The Adamic Nature Of Infants and Children post on the blog prompts this thread.

As it has been pointed out many in the fundie circle seem to relish pointing out the inherent evil in children and then go on to tell you how to modify their behavior in order to cover up their inate sin.

My question here to this group is:
"Does having the sin nature equal sin?"

The old addage, "We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners," is part and parcel to this debate as well.

I contend that yes, we do inheret the "sin nature" from the federal heasdhip of Adam as found in Romans 5:12-21. We also see a principle that without the law sin is not imputed (or held against the individual) which lays the ground work for Paul's defense of the innocents in Romans 7:9 (in the context of Romans 7:7-13). Once being alive without the law but once the commandment was made known then sin revives and we die. The only time this condition is met is for those who are incapable of knowing the law, processing the meaning of it, or comprehending it, as we find with infants, toddlers, and those with mental/cognitive developmental defects.

We see in Romans 1:16-2:18 that once we are able to comprehend the knowledge of God and his law we are responsible for it and no one is excused from the law either that was given by special revelation as recorded in scripture or by natural revelation as recorded in creation. (this knowledge is not knowledge of the Gospel but knowledge of God's law) Therefore, the definition of sin is, the transgression (breaking) of God's law.

Again in Romans 5:14 death reigned from Adam to Moses even without the law, and because of what Adam did, we all die. Yet physical death does not automatically mean spiritual death. As we know Christians die physically; Infants die physically; but that does not equate to spiritual death.

So back to the premise of this thread.
1) Does having the sin nature equate to sin?
2) Does the sin nature ony predispose us to commiting sin?
3) Can one be a sinner if one has not commited an act of sin.
3a) Can an infant who does not know or comprehend what sin or the law of God is, be condemned as a sinner?

[Jane]

There is a difference between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is the fallen nature of man, while actual sins are sins that we "actually" commit. Original sin is a state, not an act. It is contracted (i.e., inherited from our parents), not committed. (Romans 5:12).

Although infants are not yet capable of committing actual sin, they do inherit original sin. This is the primary reason that the Catholic Church baptizes infants. (Other churches also baptize infants, but their reasons for doing so may vary somewhat.)

Not sure if that answers your question, but that's the Catholic view (short version).

[paul]

Generally, I think I agree with you on this one. Here are my answers...

1) Does having the sin nature equate to sin?

No, they are different, but...


2) Does the sin nature ony predispose us to commiting sin?

Yes, our sin nature means we are bound to sin, in both senses of the word. We are shackled to it as a slave (see Rom 6) and we will do it even in an innocuous act ("Plowing of the Wicked" - Proverbs)

3) Can one be a sinner if one has not commited an act of sin.

My first thought is that "Sinner" describes our nature rather than our actions. But then my brain jumps in and reminds me of my fundy soul-winning examples: a liar is one who lies, a murderer is one who murders. In that sense, it matters not how many, just whether or not. So I'm going to waver a bit here but generally say that sinner describes our nature.

3a) Can an infant who does not know or comprehend what sin or the law of God is, be condemned as a sinner?

All who violate God's law are guilty (Romans 1, 2, 3). Lack of knowledge is not an excuse for the Gentiles according to Paul's doctrine in Romans. So in that sense, lack of knowledge or comprehension is not the issue. I suspect your intention may have been more along the lines of "an infant who doesn't have the capacity to know or comprehend". In that concept, I think the question is more difficult. It would apply to developmentally deficient adults as well. But my answer wouldn't change.

Violation of God's laws is not excused from lack of knowledge regardless of the ability to know; however, I would also be quick (VERY quick) to add that our God is a gracious and merciful God. The condemnation that results from sin is a result of both our sin and our sin nature. If someone were to not have one or the other they are still guilty. (Did Adam have a sin nature?) But God's grace and mercy extend to us despite our sin and inability to save ourselves. The same is true of infants.