Animal Nature

[AlexDTX]

I have been thinking about what is called the “sin nature” and how misleading is the term. I think a better description is to call it the “animal nature”.

Before Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden, they, being made in the image of God had a godly nature. This was not the divine nature itself because the Lord did not place his Holy Spirit within them at creation. But their created human spirit was an exact replica of the Holy Spirit in finite form.

Mankind, even before Darwinian evolution became a doctrine, recognized the similarities between other mammalian animals and people. Common components are found in all: lungs for breathing air; circulatory systems of blood; digestive and elimination systems; hair and fur; internal fertilization and live birth; and so on. In reptiles, birds, fish, amphibians, and insects common elements are also found. So for Darwin to assume such common elements suggest an evolutionary development makes sense if one begins with the assumption that there is no God.

However, such common characteristics between families of species also show design. Honda makes internal combustion engines. Those engines can be adapted to many other purposes beside automobiles. They are used for leaf blowers, weed eaters, push and rider lawn mowers and many other purposes. If one looks at all their products one could easily create an “evolutionary” chart of small Honda products becoming larger. But there is no evolution, only a practical design development into a multitude of products that can use an internal combustion engine.

So when we consider mankind beginning with Adam and Eve, we realize that common elements were needed as created beings to live in the Lord’s created world. When they believed the serpent instead of God, there godly nature in their created human spirit, died and left them only with a functioning soul and body. Bear in mind that when I say their spirit’s died I mean their spirits could no longer touch the Holy Spirit. Think of our created human spirits like rechargeable batteries. The energy of their life force remained, but being cut off from the power source, no longer could recharge, thus would run out, or die. So the fall of mankind caused them to behave like animals.

So when Paul tells us, “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Rom_8:6), he is telling us that to focus on our bodily appetites, or our animal needs, we continue in death. This is the attention and behavior of all unregenerate people. However, as I said, while their spirits are cut off from God, the vestigial elements of Adam remain of the godly nature even in the unregenerate. Their conscience might be seared but still has the knowledge of right and wrong, so while mankind has been debased to the animal nature we still are not animals.

Sin is an archery term that means, “to miss the mark”, or to err. Because the animal nature in man is called a sin nature, it acknowledges that man should have a higher nature than animals. Animals do not sin because they behave as God designed them to behave. They are animals, and animals behave as animals.

So, in the unregenerate when we say they are driven by a sin nature we mean they behave like animals when they should behave in a godly manner. This is the hypothetical point of Paul in Romans chapter 7 when an unregenerate Jew living by the law knows what he should do, but fails to do so since the animal nature drags him back down into carnality.

At this point, I realize that I have hit the nerve of all who believe Romans 7 is about Christians struggling with sin. It is the same literary device used in Hebrews chapter 6 about crucifying Christ again and falling away. The writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical illustration to make his point that it is actually impossible to fall away after the new birth. How do we know this? Because the writer frames his hypothesis with these two statements.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.​

We see the same framing in Romans 7.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?​

Right off the bat he tells us who is his target audience: the Christian Jews who were once under the Mosaic law. His hypothetical illustration ends with Romans 8:1

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

For those who are in Christ, and not living by the Mosaic law, and choose to follow the Spirit and not the appetites of the flesh, which is the animal nature, this hypothetical struggle does not exist.

The new birth has changed our nature. No longer do we have a sin nature which is the animal nature trying to regain the godly nature, but we have become partakers in the divine nature.

2Pe_1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

The corruption of lust is the animal appetites.

But we still sin, don’t we? Yes, we do. Does it require a sin nature, tho, to sin? No. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature when they were created. They were made perfectly in the image of God with a godly nature. But they were still able to sin by a choice they made. We, too, as born again Christians can still choose to sin. But there is a big difference. The divine nature within us, the Holy Spirit, prevents us from debasing back into the animal nature.

The work of Jesus Christ has become the superglue that will never let us be separated from God again since our created human spirits have been permanently joined to his Holy Spirit.

1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.​

That is, one in marriage, just as a man and a woman when they marry become one spirit.

The million dollar question that remains is this: “If we are partakers of the divine Spirit, and no longer have a sin nature, why, then do Christians sin?”

The answer has several parts to it.

First, while we are partakers of the divine nature, we are still created beings with the animal design so we can live in this world. Those appetites are natural and needed. However, just as we need to eat food to survive, we can eat too much in gluttony. Maybe the chocolate fudge was so amazing you just had to eat more, which later makes you somewhat comatose. That was sin, but it was a choice because it tasted sooooo good!

Second, we remain in a world filled with unsaved, unregenerate people whose example of subtle sins (I say “subtle: because most believers don’t do the obvious big sins), that we lose our discernment and go along with those sins.

Third, there remains demonic forces that control powerful people who bombard us with temptations through television, radio, magazines, billboards, fake news, and internet temptations of porn and merchandise sales.

Lastly, while we may have the mind of Christ, we don’t always pay attention to it, and when we know to do good, and ignore it, we commit sins of omission.

This is why John in his epistles seems to contradict himself. On the one hand he says this:

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.​

We who are born of God, know the damage of sin, so we consciously choose to avoid choices that are sinful. We keep ourselves from the works of the wicked one. Which is why John also says on the other hand:

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

Notice that John did not say “we have no sin nature”, just sin. Which is why we confess our sinful choices and actions to God so he can cleanse us from all the unrighteousness we did.

This is the significance of the exchange between Peter and Jesus during the foot washing.

Joh_13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

Joh_13:9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

Joh_13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.​

The blood of Jesus cleans us every whit, that is, removes our sin nature and gives us the divine nature. However life in this fallen world still dirties us with sin, therefore we need our feet cleaned.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But their created human spirit was an exact replica of the Holy Spirit in finite form.

Where did you get that?

 

[Josheb]

Where did you get that?

Astute inquiry. If it was finite then it was not an exact replica.

 

[Josheb]

I have been thinking about what is called the “sin nature” and how misleading is the term. I think a better description is to call it the “animal nature”.

Before Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden, they, being made in the image of God had a godly nature. This was not the divine nature itself because the Lord did not place his Holy Spirit within them at creation. But their created human spirit was an exact replica of the Holy Spirit in finite form.

Mankind, even before Darwinian evolution became a doctrine, recognized the similarities between other mammalian animals and people. Common components are found in all: lungs for breathing air; circulatory systems of blood; digestive and elimination systems; hair and fur; internal fertilization and live birth; and so on......

This isn't nearly as complicated as the op makes it.

You won't find the phrase "sinful nature" in the Greek. This is a term translations like the NIV use to get the concept of sin's effect to the reader. The term found in the Greek is short and sweet: sarx. The word literally means "flesh," and nothing more. That's it! Flesh. Look it up.



The reason dynamic translations of the Greek manuscripts use language like "sinful nature" is because the flesh Adam had before he sinned and the flesh Adam had after he sinned are different. This is true also of his cognitive, emotional, and volitional attributes as well. Adam and Eve were made naked and unashamed. At Genesis 1:31 God declared Adam "very good," but at Genesis 3:7 Adam disobeyed God and seeing his nakedness he hid. Hiding is invariably a shame-based behavior. This is clarified in John 3 when the apostle wrote men love darkness because their deeds are evil and they will not come into the light for fear their deeds will be seen for what they are. Jesus states quite plainly "No one is good but the Father," and Paul does an excellent job of expounding upon the effects of sin at the end of Romans chapter 1.

The Bible simply uses the term "flesh," and it does so with the reader understanding the flesh is no longer good, unashamed or sinless and because it is no longer good, unashamed, or sinless it is in conflict with God.

You'll note that it isn't until after the resurrection and Pentecost that we read of the conflict between flesh and Spirit. These are soteriological terms, concepts specifically related to salvation and the human relationship with our Creator, either by faith or absent it. That's all.



This gets messed up by folks like the Gnostics who incorrectly believed all things material or physical are evil and to be eschewed. Salvation is accomplished by greater degrees of knowledge and the reaching of more "spiritual" realities. This is not what the Bible teaches.

So pick up a copy of the NAS translation (a good literal or formal translation of the Greek) and see how little mention of "sinful nature" you'll find.In fact, even when you read the word "nature" you'll find that it is used in the ontological sense, not the attributes of the physical world involving plants and animals.



flesh



That's all.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Instinctual level of humanity or that which contains accumulated human knowledge is base and is in fact found at the base of the brain. But evolution has not demonstrated the link to overcome common sense.

 

[AlexDTX]

Where did you get that?

We are made in the image of God. Does God make imperfection? Whether our spirits are exactly like the Holy Spirit or not, I have assumed that it is. If not, so what? That is not the point of the post.

 

[AlexDTX]

Astute inquiry. If it was finite then it was not an exact replica.

Nit picking is a waste of time. Does every statement you write come out exactly right?

 

[AlexDTX]

So pick up a copy of the NAS translation (a good literal or formal translation of the Greek) and see how little mention of "sinful nature" you'll find.In fact, even when you read the word "nature" you'll find that it is used in the ontological sense, not the attributes of the physical world involving plants and animals.

Yes, all that you say is true.

However, apart from the Bible, listening to Christians talk, preachers preaching, and in general discussion, there is the belief that Christians are driven to sin because we retain a sin nature. This is what I addressed in my OP. We sin by choice, not because we are driven to, if we have the new birth. If someone calls himself a Christian, but remains unregenerate, that person still has the animal nature with a broken godly nature trying to be good.

 

[AlexDTX]

Instinctual level of humanity or that which contains accumulated human knowledge is base and is in fact found at the base of the brain. But evolution has not demonstrated the link to overcome common sense.

Please explain more. I don't understand your point.

 

[Josheb]

Nit picking is a waste of time.

Log, not speck. Don't attack me because of your error.

Does every statement you write come out exactly right?

Irrelevant. The sentence is logically untenable. Scripture is not illogical. Rather than attack me try correcting the error and then we will be able to agree. I will commend the effort and affirm the correction and you won't have to attack brothers in Christ.

 

[Josheb]

We are made in the image of God.

That does not mean we have the exact same Spirit as the Holy Spirit.

Does God make imperfection?

Non sequitur.

No one has said He did make imperfection. God made Adam and Eve good (Gen. 1:31) but they became not-good at Genesis 3:7. Furthermore, the word used in scripture for "perfect," or "perfection," (especially in the Greek) is more accurately rendered "mature," as in a wine coming to its fullness. This is what scripture is usually speaking about when it mentions perfection.

Besides, you've got a false dichotomy going. There is perfection and there is imperfection, but there is also that which is in-process. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul noted that we were"sown" corruptIBLE. We weren't made perfect but neither were we made imperfect. We weren't made incorruptible but neither were we made already-corruptED. We were made perfectly incomplete, if you will. Even the pre-disobedient Adam and Eve still needed Jesus, the tree of life.

So the rhetorical question "Does God make imperfection?" isn't an answer to the question asked and it evidences a misunderstanding of scripture.

Whether our spirits are exactly like the Holy Spirit or not, I have assumed that it is.

Yes, and the question put to you having made that assumption is upon what basis is that assumption made and that inquiry has not been answered. Not with any substance and not with an ability to withstand critical examination.

Don't get defensive. This isn't personal. If you can make the case for what you assume and believe then do so but if you can't reconsider your position. We're here to help if you'll let us. Akita's question is valid and it deserves a valid response.

If not, so what? That is not the point of the post.

Ah, yes, but if a premise is incorrect then so too is everything built upon it.

 

[AlexDTX]

Log, not speck. Don't attack me because of your error.

Irrelevant. The sentence is logically untenable. Scripture is not illogical. Rather than attack me try correcting the error and then we will be able to agree. I will commend the effort and affirm the correction and you won't have to attack brothers in Christ.

Fine. The sentence is logically untenable. Still, you never addressed the main point of the OP, so it is nit picking, nor is it an attack.

 

[AlexDTX]

That does not mean we have the exact same Spirit as the Holy Spirit.

Non sequitur.

No one has said He did make imperfection. God made Adam and Eve good (Gen. 1:31) but they became not-good at Genesis 3:7. Furthermore, the word used in scripture for "perfect," or "perfection," (especially in the Greek) is more accurately rendered "mature," as in a wine coming to its fullness. This is what scripture is usually speaking about when it mentions perfection.

Besides, you've got a false dichotomy going. There is perfection and there is imperfection, but there is also that which is in-process. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul noted that we were"sown" corruptIBLE. We weren't made perfect but neither were we made imperfect. We weren't made incorruptible but neither were we made already-corruptED. We were made perfectly incomplete, if you will. Even the pre-disobedient Adam and Eve still needed Jesus, the tree of life.

So the rhetorical question "Does God make imperfection?" isn't an answer to the question asked and it evidences a misunderstanding of scripture.

Yes, and the question put to you having made that assumption is upon what basis is that assumption made and that inquiry has not been answered. Not with any substance and not with an ability to withstand critical examination.

Don't get defensive. This isn't personal. If you can make the case for what you assume and believe then do so but if you can't reconsider your position. We're here to help if you'll let us. Akita's question is valid and it deserves a valid response.

Ah, yes, but if a premise is incorrect then so too is everything built upon it.

Still a shame that you ignore the main point. We are not driven by sin in the new birth.

 

[Josheb]

Fine. The sentence is logically untenable. Still, you never addressed the main point of the OP, so it is nit picking, nor is it an attack.

Still a shame that you ignore the main point. We are not driven by sin in the new birth.

And how do either of those posts help?How do they help you get where you want to go? How do they help facilitate discussion of your own op?

Log, not speck, Alex.

I addressed the op. The matter of "sinful nature" was explained and it was explained in scriptural terms and it was explained in scriptural terms with some diversity. The response was. "Yes, all that you say is true" (emphasis mine), and then the caveat, "Apart from the Bible..."


Is that what you really want to say? Do you actually want this discussion to be "apart from the Bible"? Are we to base our theology on talk shows and "preachers preaching," especially "apart from the Bible"?

Or is that too nit picky for you?

The belief that we are driven to sin because we retain a sin nature does not come from talk shows and preachers preaching apart from the Bible. It comes straight out of the Bible!

And I explained how that is so exegetically.

We do not sin by choice, Alex. Yes, we have choices and we do choose to sin but that is not the same thing as saying we sin by choice. The human choice is enslaved to sin. It is not free. Yes, the Bible uses the phrase "free will," but it does so within the context I summarized in posts 4 and 11. Christianity has long understood what we now call "total depravity." This is the view that the human is so compromised or corrupted by sin that it is impossible to choose God. Total depravity does NOT say man is totally depraved or that humans can do only bad. That would be a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity simply means the depravity is total, not that people are totally depraved.

We sin because we're sinful and we're sinful because we sin. It is not linear; it is reciprocal.

And it goes tot he ontological and existential nature of being sinful and/or what happens to a person once s/he sins. The Bible calls this "flesh," but some Bible translations render it "sinful nature." this is because it is now within our nature to sin. It is not within our nature to choose God. Only Pelagians believe sinful humanity retains something left over from sin sufficient to choose God. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley ALL agreed on this point and this matter has been vigorously and prayerfully debated for centuries going all the way back to the ECFs and aside from the Pelagian views there is uniform agreement. We are not autonomous creatures our free will is a limited free will.

Besides, that's not relevant to animals. You're gonna run into a variety of problems with the attempt to leverage sinners with an animal nature having free will in comparison to animals and you already don't like my posts. Think about this before you persist because I'll let you make that case if you think you can do so but the burdenon your end is so substantive you're working against 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice.





An unregenerate Christian is an oxymoron. It is a self-contradictory condition. To be a Christian is to be regenerate. Furthermore, to be regenerate does not mean one no longer sins. A regenerate person still has sinful flesh. Paul made this abundantly clear in Romans 7. Peter demonstrated this with his hypocrisy practiced when he behaved differently with the Jewish converts than he did with the Gentil converts (Gal. 3). The entire epistolary is filled with reports of regenerate people behaving in fleshly (sinful nature) ways. A Christian cannot remain unregenerate.



Lastly, being created in the image of God is not the same thing as having a Godly nature. This is a false equivalency. Having an "animal nature" is not the same thing as having a "broken godly nature." The flesh (animal nature) cannot be good and it does not try to be good.

So Akita's question is very good, just, valid, and op-relevant: Where did you get this idea? because evrything built upon a flawed premise is also necessarily flawed. And if you're not prepared to have your op questioned then it probably shouldn't have been posted? Did you think all the readers in the forum were going to bow down to your awesome wisdom and applaud you for your genius without examining what is posted? Did you think there would be no questions or that you wouldn't have to explain any of it scripturally?



There's a handful of problems with this op, Alex. There's some good content in there but there are critical flaws that warrant correction. Look at the second sentence in this op. "I think a better description is to call it the 'animal nature'." Given the fact human nature nature has been prayerfully and vigorously debates for 200o and there is near-uniform agreement on the matter what your sentence is saying is akin to "I think a better description than the one scripture itself and 2000 years of well-educated and well-practiced godly men have used is to call it 'animal nature'."

To which I say, "Okay, make that case. Make that case in light of what I have posted and start by actually answering Akita's question."


And try doing it without attacking me or any other poster. Try making your case without menitioning me at all. Posts, not posters.


The Bible says the post-Genesis 3:7 flesh is the problem. You say it's an unregenerate Christian with a finite version of the Holy Spirit's animal nature. I say an "unregenerate Christian" does not exist and the human spirit is not a finite Holy Spirit, nor is it the image of God we bear. You say I'm nit picking.

Make your case.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Please explain more. I don't understand your point.

The nature from the earth is an instinct of winds from the east and sunshine and worms that dust storms find another outlet to woody instincts. The fifth that mickey didn’t get ...