Let the Grace Revolution Arise in the earth today!!!

Do Christians have a sinful nature? Is it really as simple as that question?

Anyway, my revelation is ever growing and changing.

This is a much debated topic.  Renownbible theologian Michael Eaton, who knows Greek and Hebrew, answered some questions people had about this through email and I managed to get a hold of the document.

I feel responsible to post this as my views have changed recently from my old posts and I kind of lean more towards what Michael says in this document.

***********************************************************************************************************

Does a Christian have a sinful nature?

The question is sometimes asked, ‘Do Christians still have a sinful nature?’ – and sometimes the answer is given is ‘No’¹. In this connection one ‘proof text’ that might be quoted is the New International Version [from now on abbreviated NIV] of Colossians 2:11which talks about ‘putting off of the sinful nature’ and says it has already happened to the Christian. On the other hand a lot of texts in the NIV speak of our having a sinful nature! Galatians 5:13-24 and 6:8 uses the phrase eight times. And the NIV has the phrase in seven other places Romans 7:5, 18; 8:3; 13:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:10, at least one of which implies a Christian has a ‘sinful nature’ – Romans 13:14. There is no point in Paul’s saying ‘Do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature’ if there is no such thing as a sinful nature in the Christian! ²

But the question requires care and accuracy – and we need to ‘think in Greek’ rather than ‘think in NIV English’! A lot depends on what you mean by ‘sinful nature’ and what Bible translation you are using! It is one of those questions where your answer is likely to be misunderstood whether you say ‘yes’ or whether you say ‘no’ (like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ or ‘Is the Christian under the Ten Commandments?’). Actually the Greek word for ‘nature’ is phusis; it means ‘what you are by God’s creation’ (as in Romans 1:28 when it says that homosexuality is ‘against nature’) or what you are by birth (as in Ephesians 2:3 which says that ‘by nature’ men and women are children of wrath’) or what you are in the culture in which you find yourself (as in 1 Corinthians 11:14 – ‘Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace?!’) But the Greek word phusis is never used in connection with the Christian having a ‘sinful nature’.

The important word is the Greek word sarx which is often translated ‘sinful nature’, especially by the New International Version of the New Testament (also NLT). It is traditionally translated ‘flesh’ (as in KJV, ESV, NKJ, ASV, ISV, NASV). The NRSV translates it ‘self-indulgence’ in Galatians 5:13. GNB has ‘your physical desires’. NCV has ‘your sinful self’.

It would be helpful if we discussed the matter by using the old traditional translation ‘flesh’ to translate Greek sarx. Christian thinking is dominated by traditional language coming from the KJV of 1611. One difficulty with the NIV is it sometimes abandons traditional language unnecessarily! Let me address the question keeping more to the word ‘flesh’, rather than ‘sinful nature’.

Do Christians still have a sinful nature? Yes or no according to what you mean by ‘sinful nature’. If you mean ‘a character dominated by sinfulness’, the answer is ‘no’. Anonymous Anonymous in Do Christians Still Have A Sinful Nature is surely trying to say we do not have a sin-dominated nature and this is entirely correct. We are not “in” the flesh (note Romans 8:9). We used to be (Romans 7:5) but we are not any longer (Paul’s point in Romans 8:5-11). We are in an entirely different position [Note that I use the word 'position'; I do not use the confusing word 'nature']. Our position is one of being ruled by grace. We shall never lose that position. Even when we sin we have not lost our position in Christ. If by ‘nature’ you mean our ‘position in and under the domination of sin’ – it has gone for ever.

But we might come at the question in another way. Do Christians still have a sinful nature? If by ‘sinful nature’ you mean ‘a position in God which although not dominated by sin is still capable of being attracted by sin, and still capable of being powerfully tempted by remaining sinful tendencies’ – the answer is ‘Yes, we still have a sinful nature’ that we have to fight against’. We must not go so far as to say that the character ['nature'?] we have is so different from the past that we are not sinful in any respect whatsoever. This would be to go over the edge into error. Most Christians are not confused about the fact of their continuing sinfulness. Most Christians think – and they are right – that they have a remaining problem with tendencies to sin and they call often this “the sinful nature”. Attempts to overthrow this consensus are not likely to succeed. The sinful nature is likely to assert itself – even in those who deny they have it!

What we should be saying is that

• our position in Adam is gone for ever

• our objective status as condemned people is gone for ever

• the dominion of the body by sin is gone for ever. THIS is the point of Colossians 2:11 which says the ‘body of the flesh’ [= flesh-dominated body] is gone.

But Paul is not saying that all tendencies to sin [sinful nature?] have gone for ever. Why write about ‘checking the indulgence of the flesh’ (Col.2:23) if there is no such thing needing to be checked? How can we be told not to gratify the flesh with its sinful desires if there is no such thing as a sinful nature with sinful desires? Romans 13:14. Why tell us in Galatians 5:13 not to use freedom as an opportunity for the flesh (sinful nature?) if we cannot do so because there is no such thing? Galatians 5:17 says ‘The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit’. This surely means that there is something in us which we can call ‘flesh’ (sinful nature?) which resists the Spirit who is within us. Surely ‘flesh’ may reasonably be translated ‘sinful nature’ at this point. The passage goes on to say ‘The desires of the Spirit are against the flesh’; this surely implies there is quite a powerful force here (requiring opposition). There are two opposing powers (the Holy Spirit; the ‘flesh’) which are so powerful that there is strong opposition between them. What is this ‘flesh’? It is not ‘the old man’ (our position in Adam; he no longer exists; he died) so what is it? Surely it is reasonable to say ‘the sinful nature’ or ‘the remaining tendency to sin’. Galatians 6:8 says a person should not sow to ‘his own flesh’? If this is not his own sinful nature, what is it? In Galatians 5 some kind of continuing sinfulness is being taken as a reality. It is obvious that what is being referred to could rightly be called ‘sinful nature’.

The Bible does not say that the sinful nature (or ‘flesh’) was crucified with Christ so as to be done away. It says the entire man of the past was done away with. The ‘old man’ is the entire person in Adam. It is not a ‘nature’ (phusis? a word Paul hardly uses). It is not sarx (in the sense of continuing sinfulness, continuing temptability). That is not done away with and is not mentioned in Romans 6:6.

Anonymous Anonymous who seeks to address this question (and makes some good points) is mistaken in saying ‘old self’ in Romans 6:6 is eso anthropos. It is not! The phrase in Romans 7:22 is not used in Romans 6:6 and there is no reason to think they are interchangeable. It is confusing to bring the phrase in at all. Romans 7:7-25 should not be brought into this discussion. It surely has to do with the condition of the unsaved person on the [rare!] occasion when he tries to live by God’s law. It should not be brought in to discuss what is the normal condition of the Christian. The Greek in Romans 6:6 is palaios … anthropos; it is literally ‘old man’ and means all that we were ‘in Adam’ (Romans 6 develops Romans 5:12-21!). That has indeed gone for ever. We died! But ‘old man’ is not the same as sarx ['sinful nature' or whatever].

This kind of discussion is a difficult one and what makes it difficult is the word “nature”. The fact is, the Greek word ‘nature’, phusis, is not much used in discussions of how sinful we are! The Greek word sarx is often translated ‘sinful nature’ and I think this is legitimate but I admit it is somewhat confusing at times.

It is going too far to say that sarx in the sense of continuing sinful tendencies has gone for ever! This is obviously not true. Sarx is best translated ‘flesh’ in my opinion. I wish we did not use NIV’s term ‘sinful nature’; it is confusing.

Anonymous Anonymous is happy with the NIV of Colossians 2:11 with its talk of ‘putting off of the sinful nature’!! But this is inconsistent, because elsewhere Anonymous does not want sarx to mean sinful nature (but every Greek dictionary agrees that it often does!). If sarx does not mean sinful nature then it does not mean ‘sinful nature’ in Colossians 2:11!! Actually Colossians 2:11 is one place where ‘sinful nature’ is definitely not a good translation. The Greek word body is the prominent word here. We should use a literalistic translation at this point. Literalistic translations translate the phrase, the body of the flesh (ESV). It should be compared with Romans 6:6 which says the “body of sin” was done away with. Anonymous assumes (but provides no evidence) that this is the same as saying the sinful nature is done away with. I suggest this is a mistake. The body is indeed the body! The “body of sin” is the body dominated by sin – judged by the context in Romans 6:1-5. Lloyd-Jones says “It really does mean the body” (New Man, p.70), and has pages proving the point.

Perhaps I should comment on 2 Corinthians 5:17. It says nothing about ‘flesh’. Every Christian (I hope) agrees he/she is in a radically new position. But this says nothing precisely about ‘flesh’. Anonymous asks “What is the old?” He answers “the old” is the flesh. But 2 Corithians 5:17 does not say “the old” is “the flesh”. If I am asked ‘What is “the old” that has radically passed away’, I answer: our position in Adam. We are no longer “in Adam”; we are “in Christ”. This is surely the new creation. But nothing about the flesh is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:17. It cannot be used as a proof text for denying continuing sinfulness.

James 1 needs to be allowed more weight. Anonymous’ way of dealing with this is confusing. He says we have sinful lusts but not a sinful nature. But this is playing with words. If we have sinful lusts we have a sinful nature! What is the different between lusts and nature? James emphasizes that they are not to be blamed on God. He does not blame them on Satan. He blames them on the person himself! What then is the difference between saying “We have our own sinful desires” and saying “We have a continuing sinful nature”. I have no objection to saying our sinful nature is not dominant; this is indeed a Scriptural thought. We are under the powerful rule of grace. But should we say our sinfulness [sinful nature?] does not exist at all? Everything contradicts it – including James 1! At this point Anonymous quotes the passages that are against him – but gives no adequate exposition of them.

Does a Christian have a sinful nature? No, if you mean a position under the lordship of wickedness. Does a Christian have a sinful nature? Yes, if you mean a continuing problem with temptation and a tendency for sin to drag you, without any authority to do so, in a direction you should not go.