Is everyone born evil?

[Elife3]

Since everyone is born in sin, does that make everyone born "evil"? Does that apply once we become aware of sin and its consequences? Is anyone really evil at all? Granted, everyone sins, but the blood of Christ washes sin away. I'm sort of on the notion that everyone is born evil, but the blood of Christ washes it away. Romans 3:10 says "There is none righteous, no, not one." Well, am I right? I think this could be interesting.

 

[elopez]

Since everyone is born in sin, does that make everyone born "evil"? Does that apply once we become aware of sin and its consequences? Is anyone really evil at all? Granted, everyone sins, but the blood of Christ washes sin away. I'm sort of on the notion that everyone is born evil, but the blood of Christ washes it away. Romans 3:10 says "There is none righteous, no, not one." Well, am I right? I think this could be interesting.

The original sin of Adam is passed by means of natural heredity to all of humanity, which means everyone is born in sin. Yet this sin differs from a normal sin in that one that is personally committed, rather this sin is contracted. It is a nature that is transfused to man not an act.

Man is held accountable for a normal sin when he does it with full knowledge of the seriousness of the offense/consequences and the sin itself, and when he commits the deed deliberately of his own desires. Since this ancestral sin is contracted and not committed, and being born in this nature of sin while having absolutely no knowledge of our birth and so not the nature we are born into, we cannot be held responsible for this ancestral sin and thus, neither can we be for the original sin of Adam.

That said, I do not believe the nature we are born into is evil itself, rather it is the tendency towards becoming evil. So yes, people can become evil, for the blood of Christ does not wash away everyone's sin in an absolute sense.

 

[JCFantasy23]

No, I don't think anyone is born 'evil.' Evil is the lack of good, and if we have God in us, we have some good.

 

[jant54]

yes we are all "not God" not perfect. We are failed.

 

[holyrokker]

We are born neither sinful nor evil.
Romans 3:12 "All have turned away,they have together become worthless"

Turned away from what?
Become worthless, not "born worthless"

 

[Theofane]

No, I don't think anyone is born 'evil.' Evil is the lack of good, and if we have God in us, we have some good.

While I agree with you that no one is born evil I'd have to say evil is more than the simple absence of good. I wonder, is there is such a thing as innate human goodness un-influenced by the Holy Spirit? I tend to think that it is by the grace of God alone that we can be good and do good.

 

[Bouke285]

No, I don't think anyone is born 'evil.' Evil is the lack of good, and if we have God in us, we have some good.

No one is born with God in them. We are born how we are, we are born with desire to sin. Labeling this as evil depends on your definition of evil, it's a superficial title.

Christ's redemption didn't separate us from our sin nature. We became justified, now is the process of sanctification. Those who are saved will grow in Christ as they learn about the God they love. The final stage of salvation is glorification, this is when we are separated from our sin nature, this happens at death. We will have no desire to sin, we will have no evil in or around us. We will be resurrected into our bodies, but glorified, sinless.

 

[rogueapologist]

No, we are not born evil. The biological heritableness of sinfulness is a theological error that, unfortunately, continues to persist.

This, of course, does not mean that any of us avoid growing up sinful. After all, we are born into a broken world, and we will inevitably learn how to live from our teachers, who are themselves sinful.

But even though the end is the same (all are sinful), I think de-coupling the inheritance of sinfulness from biology is an important theological distinction that needs to be made. After all, Christ did not come to save us from biology (given that God was pleased to save us THROUGH biology), but rather to restore us to relationship with the Father. It is this brokenness of relationship, and not our biology, which is the fundamental nature of sinfulness and is, therefore, that for which God made ultimate remedy through the Incarnation of the eternal Logos.

 

[Bouke285]

No, we are not born evil. The biological heritableness of sinfulness is a theological error that, unfortunately, continues to persist.

This, of course, does not mean that any of us avoid growing up sinful. After all, we are born into a broken world, and we will inevitably learn how to live from our teachers, who are themselves sinful.

But even though the end is the same (all are sinful), I think de-coupling the inheritance of sinfulness from biology is an important theological distinction that needs to be made. After all, Christ did not come to save us from biology (given that God was pleased to save us THROUGH biology), but rather to restore us to relationship with the Father. It is this brokenness of relationship, and not our biology, which is the fundamental nature of sinfulness and is, therefore, that for which God made ultimate remedy through the Incarnation of the eternal Logos.

It's not biological, it's inheritance as the human race. If you are among the human race, you are born sinful. We can't explain how Christ was without sin, that's why people go to biological explanations. But your refusal to except sin is inherited must come from the inability to hold in tension that Christ was born sinless.

Your opinion is counter-scriptural and counter-traditional. There is no human who could be born and never sin who would make it to heaven apart from Christ. This is fallacy. Nothing in us can save us from judgement.

 

[rogueapologist]

It's not biological, it's inheritance as the human race. If you are among the human race, you are born sinful. We can't explain how Christ was without sin, that's why people go to biological explanations. But your refusal to except sin is inherited must come from the inability to hold in tension that Christ was born sinless.

Your opinion is counter-scriptural and counter-traditional. There is no human who could be born and never sin who would make it to heaven apart from Christ. This is fallacy. Nothing in us can save us from judgement.

First, I never suggested that anyone is born and never sins. I said that sinfulness is not a biologically heritable trait.

Moreover, the reason that Christ was sinless was NOT because he was born without sin, but rather because he was in all things obedient to the will of his Father. It had nothing to do with how he was born, but with how he yielded to the will of God. This, in fact, is what the "biblical" answer is to Jesus' sinlessness (look it up, if you're curious).

When viewed in the right way, it is quite easy to describe how Christ was sinless AND how sinfulness is not a biologically heritable trait.

 

[Bouke285]

First, I never suggested that anyone is born and never sins. I said that sinfulness is not a biologically heritable trait.

Moreover, the reason that Christ was sinless was NOT because he was born without sin, but rather because he was in all things obedient to the will of his Father. It had nothing to do with how he was born, but with how he yielded to the will of God. This, in fact, is what the "biblical" answer is to Jesus' sinlessness (look it up, if you're curious).

When viewed in the right way, it is quite easy to describe how Christ was sinless AND how sinfulness is not a biologically heritable trait.

Your view on this matter forces the conclusion that if one was born and never committed one sin, that person would never be separated from God, hence that person would be eternally united with God, and not need a savior. This then brings us to conclude that our salvation is within us first and then God. It is something we could work toward (never needing to be saved). without the inherited sin this is the conclusion one must come to. So what then does the fall of Adam have to do with us? If it doesn't effect us? Adam was born with no internal desire to sin, it was only after the external coersion directly by Eve, indirectly by Satan that he fell into sin. This caused God to place the blame on every human to be born after that moment, as well as for every human to biologically inherit his sin-nature. No one is born good. No one is born with a desire in themselves to choose God.

What grounds do you have to make the claim that we don't inherit the original sin of Adam, as members of his race? That thousands of years of traditional belief on this matter has been wrong? To have this view you must blatantly ignore or re-exegete many, many passages even removing them from their intended context.

Did Christ incarnate have unlimited knowledge? He only knew what was revealed to him by the Spirit, what related to his mission. He was human, not using his divine knowledge, presence, or power. This is a completely different issue, but you seem to be attempting to remove a huge part of the character of Christ. He had no sin nature, he had no desire to sin, being God he couldn't have sinned, but it's because of his nature. How he could be born of a human woman, and be without original sin (no matter your illumination on this issue) is a mystery. Speculations have arisen on the issue with no firm conclusion. We know Christ was sinless, we know he refused to use his divinity while being Christ-in-humility because doing so would disqualify him from satisfying the righteousness of the Father and he couldn't have atoned for human individual sin, being of a different species than human. Fully God Fully man, this qualified him to be our redeemer.

 

[rogueapologist]

Your view on this matter forces the conclusion that if one was born and never committed one sin, that person would never be separated from God, hence that person would be eternally united with God, and not need a savior.

I hardly see why this is a necessary conclusion. It's based on the assumption that the "default" is union with God...but why is this assumption made?

It's also based on the assumption that sins are reducible to "acts", but this is a very deficient view of "sin" (IMO). Sin is undoing of good, the undoing of the will of God. It is not "some-thing" in and of itself, but is only manifest in so far as it is the diminution, or negation, of the good.

This then brings us to conclude that our salvation is within us first and then God.

This logic doesn't follow. If a person were never separated from God, why would they need salvation in the first place? Salvation suggests being saved "from" something, correct? So if a person does not need saved "from" something, and is also united with God, how is this "salvation within us?"

So what then does the fall of Adam have to do with us? If it doesn't effect us?

We are born into a sinful world and are shaped and formed by our parents and society to be sinful people. Obviously, we all reap the effects.

This caused God to place the blame on every human to be born after that moment, as well as for every human to biologically inherit his sin-nature. No one is born good. No one is born with a desire in themselves to choose God.

Blame? Sinfulness is not blame, it is a orientation away from God, an animosity toward the will of God, a fracturing in the human-divine relationship. It has nothing to do with biology, and your thinking comes crashing down the moment one considers whether or not Adam is a real human being.

What grounds do you have to make the claim that we don't inherit the original sin of Adam, as members of his race? That thousands of years of traditional belief on this matter has been wrong? To have this view you must blatantly ignore or re-exegete many, many passages even removing them from their intended context.

The logic doesn't follow. If we have inherited sinfulness biologically from Adam, why have we not also inherited salvation from Christ biologically, since he is the New Adam?

Did Christ incarnate have unlimited knowledge? He only knew what was revealed to him by the Spirit, what related to his mission. He was human, not using his divine knowledge, presence, or power. This is a completely different issue, but you seem to be attempting to remove a huge part of the character of Christ. He had no sin nature, he had no desire to sin, being God he couldn't have sinned, but it's because of his nature. How he could be born of a human woman, and be without original sin (no matter your illumination on this issue) is a mystery. Speculations have arisen on the issue with no firm conclusion. We know Christ was sinless, we know he refused to use his divinity while being Christ-in-humility because doing so would disqualify him from satisfying the righteousness of the Father and he couldn't have atoned for human individual sin, being of a different species than human. Fully God Fully man, this qualified him to be our redeemer.

All of these questions aren't really related to the question at hand, which is why was Christ sinless. The Scriptures make it very plain that Christ was sinless not because of his biology, and not because of the virginity of his mother. Rather, he was sinless because he did the will of his Father. Look it up.

 

[holyrokker]

It's not biological, it's inheritance as the human race. If you are among the human race, you are born sinful. We can't explain how Christ was without sin, that's why people go to biological explanations.

It's easy to explain why Jesus was without sin. People are not born sinful, hence Jesus was not born sinful.

 

[Bouke285]

It's easy to explain why Jesus was without sin. People are not born sinful, hence Jesus was not born sinful.

That isn't an explanation its dogmatic defense with no basis, much like the majority of folk beliefs today.

 

[holyrokker]

That isn't an explanation its dogmatic defense with no basis, much like the majority of folk beliefs today.

No basis?

The Bible doesn't state that people are born sinful, so the baseless dogma would be the one that says sin is inherited.

 

[Bouke285]

I hardly see why this is a necessary conclusion. It's based on the assumption that the "default" is union with God...but why is this assumption made?

Sin brings death, lack of union with God.

It's also based on the assumption that sins are reducible to "acts", but this is a very deficient view of "sin" (IMO). Sin is undoing of good, the undoing of the will of God. It is not "some-thing" in and of itself, but is only manifest in so far as it is the diminution, or negation, of the good.

Sin is an act that goes against the will of God. There is sin in general, but I was referring to the specific instance of committing that generality "sinning"

This logic doesn't follow. If a person were never separated from God, why would they need salvation in the first place? Salvation suggests being saved "from" something, correct? So if a person does not need saved "from" something, and is also united with God, how is this "salvation within us?"

Above, you claimed a person isn't born in union with God, here you claim why would a person need salvation if they were never separated? If someone was born sinless it would be something within their ability to never be separated from God (sin). Someone could keep themselves in unity with God hence never needing a savior this means Christ's salvation is only a secondary act following peoples inability to live in God's laws, not a necessity for every human from birth.

We are born into a sinful world and are shaped and formed by our parents and society to be sinful people. Obviously, we all reap the effects.

This is unbiblical. You have yet to produce any evidence for your view. The only reason we need a savior is because the outside influence of the world will force us to "depart from good?" what a limited understanding of redemption.

Blame? Sinfulness is not blame, it is a orientation away from God, an animosity toward the will of God, a fracturing in the human-divine relationship. It has nothing to do with biology, and your thinking comes crashing down the moment one considers whether or not Adam is a real human being.

"Sinfulness is rebelión against God, and it is unrightousness. Sinfulness is what forces each of us to deserve the judgment of a righteous God who can't defy His own Character. Every person alive deserves his judgement there is none righteous, not none before they commit departure from good, but none.

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The logic doesn't follow. If we have inherited sinfulness biologically from Adam, why have we not also inherited salvation from Christ biologically, since he is the New Adam?

This is a blatant straw-man, first Christ never had any biological offspring. Second, The father is just, Christ atoning for us on the cross was the only way for us to be redeemed from our fallen state. God can't defy his own righteousness, he needs payment for our sin, Christ was the only one who could make that payment. It is only in believing in His works that we are regenerated, and sealed with the Holy Spirit unto salvation.

All of these questions aren't really related to the question at hand, which is why was Christ sinless. The Scriptures make it very plain that Christ was sinless not because of his biology, and not because of the virginity of his mother. Rather, he was sinless because he did the will of his Father. Look it up.

This exegete is operating on the false premise of humanity being born sinless. You keep saying look it up, how about, you show me the section of scripture you interpreted to fit your theology.

 

[holyrokker]

Sin brings death, lack of union with God.



Sin is an act that goes against the will of God. There is sin in general, but I was referring to the specific instance of committing that generality "sinning".

Sin is committed in will before an act occurs. In fact, an "act of sin" isn't necessary for a person to be guilty of sin. That's one of the reasons why the Law cannot justify anyone. The law pertains to actions committed; it doesn't judge intentions.

 

[Bouke285]

No basis?

The Bible doesn't state that people are born sinful, so the baseless dogma would be the one that says sin is inherited.

Ephesians 2:2 (ESV)
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

Ephesians 2:3 (ESV)
3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:13-14
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Here Paul points out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people did no have God's written laws. Their sins were "not counted" (as infractions of the law), they still died. Them dying is proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam's sin.

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —

Romans 5:18-19
18 So then as through one transgression [a]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Ephesians 2:3
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, [a]indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Sin is committed in will before an act occurs. In fact, an "act of sin" isn't necessary for a person to be guilty of sin. That's one of the reasons why the Law cannot justify anyone. The law pertains to actions committed; it doesn't judge intentions.

I have no problem stating there can be sin without act, I was pointing out when making this statement, that someone born in isolation for example, with no outside influences, should be able to live a sinless life and require no salvation. This hasn't and can't happen because of original sin.

 

[Forge3]

Since everyone is born in sin, does that make everyone born "evil"? Does that apply once we become aware of sin and its consequences? Is anyone really evil at all? Granted, everyone sins, but the blood of Christ washes sin away. I'm sort of on the notion that everyone is born evil, but the blood of Christ washes it away. Romans 3:10 says "There is none righteous, no, not one." Well, am I right? I think this could be interesting.

Have you ever seen a baby laugh in joy. C'mon man it is not planning on how to conquer the world!

 

[tangled]

What about this verse?

Psalm 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.