Is Man Inherently Good or Inherently Bad?

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Is man (humans) inherently good or inherently bad?

Based on my observations and the various literature I have read, it would appear the secular world believes that mankind (humankind) is inherently good.

My opinion on the matter is based on what the Bible says and based on what I have studied it seems clear, at least to me, that mankind is inherently bad. I also personally believe, based on my study of Scripture, that mankind inherited this bad from the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden. In fact I believe that mankind inherited a sin nature and are in fact a slave to that nature.

Now based on what I gather from Scripture, when one repents of their sin and accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior they are freed from that sin nature, however; Christians are still affected by itâ€â€but Christians have what unbelievers do notâ€â€God working within them to fight the sin nature . I also believe that God not only frees a Christian from the sin nature but He also gives enabling grace that allows them to over come sin in their lives.

So please tell me what you think.

 

[Sothenes]

I want to say to everyone that it is an 'in house' debate and this is part of an article that I had previously written and sort of fits what you posted.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

If we have a divine nature and can become as God, what does that do to our sinful nature? Does our sinful nature go away? I John 1:8 says,â€ÂIf we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.†I’ve met some people who tried to say that they have stopped sinning. They would make you believe that Peter and Paul were inferior Christians and that they have mastered the tongue which James 3:8 says,’..the tongue can no man tame..†They would make you believe that Peter was divine and never did anything wrong. Why was Peter then rebuked (Galatians 2:11) by Paul if Peter was divine? Why would Paul write in Romans 7:19, â€ÂFor the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I doâ€Â? The reason why Jesus is fully God is that He was different and He was tempted and without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Romans 3:23 says,â€ÂFor all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;†and that is the contrast between God and sinful man. You can practice all of the divinity you want but Isaiah says,â€Â..our righteousness are as filthy rags;...and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.†(Isaiah 64:6).

I've been talking to people on the internet who don't have a full understanding of what sin is because they think that they can subdue the flesh and have a "works righteousness". The problem is that sin is built into us as this quote points out:

When Paul used the word “flesh†(sarx), it could signify for him human life generally, or more particularly non-Christian life and practice. The general, neutral use of the word is illustrated by his profession to the Galatians:
The life I live in the body [sarx] I live by faith in the Son of God†(Gal. 2:20) As in his statement to the Corinthians, that ‘flesh and blood cann’t inherit the kingdom of God†(1 Cor. 15;50), the word sarx refers to earthly, mortal life.

The more negative use of the word appears in contexts in which Paul discussed the aspirations, values, and behavior of people unaided and unenligghtened by God’s Spirit. In these passages flesh is contrasted with the Spirit to show how earthly orientation, values, and practices contrast with divine values and characteristics. Two passages in particular illustrate Paul’s perspective on this matter. In Romans 8:5-13 and Galatians 5:13-26 he drew a series of contrasts distinguishing non-Christian experience and behavior from Christian life and practice.

In both of these passages the NIV translates the word “flesh†by the phrase “sinful nature.†This is a satisfactory translation if it is kept in mind that “nature†primarily refers to a set of values and practices, that is, a capacity of disposition (in Christians), rather than a constitutional or material aspect of a person. In Romans 8 Paul regarded people as either controlled by the flesh or the Spirit.â€Â

Yet in his letter to the Galatians Paul seemed to speak of the flesh in the negative sense as a continuing reality for the Christian, a propensity of orientation toward sin and away from God’s will that hounds a believer until the end of earthly life (the tense of the verbs “desires†and “in conflict†in 5:17, e.g., suggests an on-going struggle). The flesh is thus not an alien entity in the life of a Christian, but a disposition that expresses the goals, aspirations, values, and practices of people in the world, an orientation that Christians never escape entirely until they depart this earth.

It is also a disposition from which Christians cannot turn away apart from the enablement of the Spirit of God. But this anticipates a discussion of Romans 7 that has relevance to this question and may now be taken up (e.g., v. 18,â€ÂI know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature [sarx]/ For I have a desire to do what it is good, but I cannot carry it outâ€Â).

-p.261 from “A Biblical Theology Of The New Testament†(Dallas Theological Seminary Faculty), Roy B. Zuck, Editor

“I am unspiritual (carnal), sold as a slave to sin.†The word translated “unspiritual†is an adjective of the word “flesh†(sarkinos).
-ibid

Thereofore no amount of works would ever negate what is in us. What we need is substitutionary atonement which is what Jesus offers. We offer Jesus ourselves as sinners to Jesus. He takes the righteousness from his account and adds it to our account. Then we are forgiven. The righteousness He adds to our account is positionally but practically we are still sinners.

 

[Imagican]

Noc,

I am forced to agree with you here 100 percent. Since the fall of man, we have an example of a time when there was only ONE descent man left on the planet. I would venture to say that things are most likely WORSE now than at the time of Noah. So, as you say you have noted, we are inherently 'bad'. Thank God for Jesus Christ!!!!!!

 

[Novum]

"Good" and "bad" are extraordinarily, irreducibly subjective. Different people from different religions, cultures, and countries will give you completely different answers to this question; so different, in fact, that I honestly view this question as meaningless.

 

[mutzrein]

Scripture speaks of man, as a result of Adam’s sin, being dead in trespasses and sin. When I was born of the Spirit of God I was given life. As scripture confirms, I passed from death to life. So, whereas once I was dead in sin I am now alive in Christ. I have been redeemed from the power of sin which is death. So now, sin and death does not have any hold over me.

But this does not free me from the body of flesh which every man has as his birthright. And if I am to overcome the lusts of the flesh, then I need to walk in the Spirit. And this is a walk of faith.

As his son, my Heavenly Father has provided everything for me. All that is required of me is to walk in the provision of my father. This is what it means to walk in faith. And if I remain in faith I know that there is nothing I need that He has not already provided.

Again, scripture says, “that which is without faith is sin.†And that for me puts it all into perspective. Faith. The key element to our walk with God. If we think that we can achieve righteousness before God by what we do then it is not faith. And according to scripture it is sin.

But let's not confuse what has happened to those who have been redeemed from the power of sin with what is being spoken of here. Those who are born of the Spirit have passed from death to life. So the life (eternal) that has been given to them will always remain.

But if after receiving the spirit they go back to trying to achieve a righteousness which is not of faith, then this is sin. They don’t lose the gift, but they are made accountable for that gift of life that God by His grace has given them.

 

[Georges]

Man is born without sin...and learns it. Very early and very quickly.

However, in alignment with Judaism, a child is not held to responsiblity until he is taught what sin is....you are taught what sin is by what is in the Torah.

In Judaism, the age of accountablity is around 12-13 when a Boy/Girl are Bar/Bat Mitzvahed. Until that age the parents are responsible and the child legally is not.

What are they (children) doing from birth to the Bar Mitzvah age? Learning the Torah...

PS.....inherited sin, and the thought that man is instinctively evil/bad is a basic Gnostic fundamental.

 

[Sothenes]

Man is born without sin...and learns it. Very early and very quickly.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[Georges]

Man is born without sin...and learns it. Very early and very quickly.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Yes...the most famous verse in the inherent sin debate....also the most misunderstood in the debate.

The verse doesn't say that David was sinful at conception. He wasn't evil born into the world, rather, he was born into a world that was already sinful and he was "shapen" to the man he had become because of it.

This verse can't be conclusive in either way....

Broken down from my point of view....

Psa 51:5a Behold, I was shapen in iniquity....

Can mean that he learned sin.....as a child is shapened by learning. You are the man you are now because you were shapened to be that man, by learning and experience.

There has always been evil in the world. David is lamenting that he "at times is evil" and this simply saying that he learned it.

Psa 51:5b and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Can mean that his Mother was sinful (as we all are) during the time of conception....

David is merely stating evil is present in the world....not saying that he was born sinful....

 

[gingercat]

Thank you geroges,

That makes so much sense. :angel:

 

[GundamZero]

Well, when God created us, he did it the right way. No doubt about that. You see, we were created with the capacity to do good or bad. We were not created that way, but unless we fully trust in the Lord, we end up sinful to the core. Thus, there is no one alive who is not inherently evil in the Lord's sight, since there are non that do God's will fromthe start. A Christian lives with a dual nature, one fighting the other. There flesh seeks to sin, the spirit seeks to live, both in conflict with the other.

 

[Sothenes]

Man is born without sin...and learns it. Very early and very quickly.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Yes...the most famous verse in the inherent sin debate....also the most misunderstood in the debate.

The verse doesn't say that David was sinful at conception. He wasn't evil born into the world, rather, he was born into a world that was already sinful and he was "shapen" to the man he had become because of it.

This verse can't be conclusive in either way....

Broken down from my point of view....

Psa 51:5a Behold, I was shapen in iniquity....

Can mean that he learned sin.....as a child is shapened by learning. You are the man you are now because you were shapened to be that man, by learning and experience.

There has always been evil in the world. David is lamenting that he "at times is evil" and this simply saying that he learned it.

Psa 51:5b and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Can mean that his Mother was sinful (as we all are) during the time of conception....

David is merely stating evil is present in the world....not saying that he was born sinful....

Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.


I'm not the only one with this interpretation.

 

[Imagican]

Georges,

I must confess that what you offer has a 'ring' of truth to it. For we know children are 'without' sin until able to make a 'concious' effort to surcome to temptation. BUT, and let me say again, BUT, we are TOLD that the flesh IS sin. Therefore making all of us that are born that live to the age of accountability SINNERS. In this respect we are all destined to sin.

 

[Georges]

Man is born without sin...and learns it. Very early and very quickly.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Yes...the most famous verse in the inherent sin debate....also the most misunderstood in the debate.

The verse doesn't say that David was sinful at conception. He wasn't evil born into the world, rather, he was born into a world that was already sinful and he was "shapen" to the man he had become because of it.

This verse can't be conclusive in either way....

Broken down from my point of view....

Psa 51:5a Behold, I was shapen in iniquity....

Can mean that he learned sin.....as a child is shapened by learning. You are the man you are now because you were shapened to be that man, by learning and experience.

There has always been evil in the world. David is lamenting that he "at times is evil" and this simply saying that he learned it.

Psa 51:5b and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Can mean that his Mother was sinful (as we all are) during the time of conception....

David is merely stating evil is present in the world....not saying that he was born sinful....

Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.


I'm not the only one with this interpretation.

No you are not....unfortunately..and had used it in support of an inherited sin (original sin) stance I used to believe in at one time...this brings to the table once again who is doing the translating and from what line of thought.

If the translators are from the theology of Pauline Christianity with it's hints of Gnosticism (The world is basically evil), the passage will translate as you have presented in the translation above.

If the translators are not of Pauline Theology then the english will be more supportive of "a sinless child born into a world of sin".

 

[Georges]

Georges,

I must confess that what you offer has a 'ring' of truth to it. For we know children are 'without' sin until able to make a 'concious' effort to surcome to temptation. BUT, and let me say again, BUT, we are TOLD that the flesh IS sin. Therefore making all of us that are born that live to the age of accountability SINNERS. In this respect we are all destined to sin.

IMA,

Something that just hit me that may shed some light to your post and mine.

To whom is this book written to and about? Ans...The Jews....these are people wrapped up in their religious life...it's everything to them. Jewish Children are taught from birth the things about God...daily. They are taught the concepts of Torah by their parents so that they will be responsible religious adults...until that time it is on the parents....

Anyone ever wonder why Jesus was in Jerusalem at 12? Anyone ever wonder why he was discussing issues with the religious leaders?

Could it have been a Bar Mitzvah situation?

 

[Sothenes]

Anyone ever wonder why Jesus was in Jerusalem at 12? Anyone ever wonder why he was discussing issues with the religious leaders?

Could it have been a Bar Mitzvah situation?

Don't you think that Mary or Joseph would have been involved in a Bar Mitzvah?

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

 

[Sothenes]

If the translators are not of Pauline Theology then the english will be more supportive of "a sinless child born into a world of sin".

In view of the sacrificial system, I would say,"no".

Name a few people in the Old Testament who didn't have to sacrifice to approach a Holy G-d.

 

[Georges]

If the translators are not of Pauline Theology then the english will be more supportive of "a sinless child born into a world of sin".

In view of the sacrificial system, I would say,"no".

Children were not viewed as responsible adults.....so they didn't have to worry about the sacrificial system.

Name a few people in the Old Testament who didn't have to sacrifice to approach a Holy G-d.

Doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

 

[Reformationist]

No you are not....unfortunately..and had used it in support of an inherited sin (original sin) stance I used to believe in at one time...this brings to the table once again who is doing the translating and from what line of thought.

If the translators are from the theology of Pauline Christianity with it's hints of Gnosticism (The world is basically evil), the passage will translate as you have presented in the translation above.

If the translators are not of Pauline Theology then the english will be more supportive of "a sinless child born into a world of sin".

Hello everyone. This is my first post on this forum so I thought I'd jump right in. :D

I'm curious Georges, is it your contention that children are born free of the stain of sin, a position that the heretic Pelagius took, or are you simply purporting that children are not held accountable for their sin until such time as they reach a certain age?

Also, it seems as if you're implying that one cannot come to a proper understanding of God's Word if they subscribe to Pauline theology or, rather, that Pauline theology is not consistant with God's revelation. Have I misunderstood you on that point?

Thanks for your response.

God bless

 

[Sothenes]

If the translators are not of Pauline Theology then the english will be more supportive of "a sinless child born into a world of sin".

In view of the sacrificial system, I would say,"no".

Children were not viewed as responsible adults.....so they didn't have to worry about the sacrificial system.

Name a few people in the Old Testament who didn't have to sacrifice to approach a Holy G-d.

Doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

Children may not have been viewed as responsible adults but they can still sin and Leviticus 16:16 says that they can make an atonement for all their sins. Verse 17 says that he can make "an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel."


"And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you."-Leviticus 9:6

Apparently, it was the whole congregation that stood before the Lord (Leviticus 9:5).

"And he brought the people's offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first."-Leviticus 9:15

When I see Leviticus 10:6 say that wrath would come upon all the people then I believe that "all" means "all".

"In the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary."-Numbers 3:28

It is interesting that all the males from a month old and upward were counted if they weren't responsible adults.

 

[Lord&Savior]

Actually the 'truth' of this matter is children are born with the stain of Adam's sin and they need redemption if they will be saved when they die (no matter what age ) because 'no one' goes to the Father unless they go through Christ. All human beings need Christ’s merits applied to them if they will be saved in the end.

Babies of course are not born or guilty of any personal sins or evil until they reach an age of reason where they begin to know right from wrong and chose to sin against God and neighbor or against their own body.

So how do we go about redeeming a child who can not speak or consciously chose to accept Christ on a personal level?

Baptism. Redemption from the fall of mankind is free and for 'all' and baptism is the normal (but not limited to) means of man receiving God’s grace of redemption.

Now salvation, that’s another topic altogether.