Question about original sin.

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi, Soldier (no problems with Irisian posting styles here sorry inside joke). Interestingly enough most people acuse us of condemning all unbaptized infants to hell, which has never been the Church's teaching. Hell is reserved for the punishment of sin. Clearly an infant is not capable of sin, so they do not go there. The final outcome for infants which die unbaptized is debated and is not exactly clear. None the less, the Catholic position properly understood is that they do not suffer and certainly do not go to hell.

 

[armothe]

It's kind of hard to explain. My belief is that the way God sees it, Sin in embedded in everyone's genes but doesn't REALLY start to kick in until they reach their teenage years, when they become more rebelious to authority, right or wrong authority at that, and also begin to form their own opinions about their world.

I don't think people realize what they mean by saying that either sin is inherited or sin is genetic.

Rather, sin is either an emotion or an action caused by emotion. And yes, emotion is genetic to a point. However, most emotions are learned behavior - constantly being developed over a lifetime.

So to me - saying sin is genetic is as simple as saying that someone inherited their father's bad temper, or their mother's abusive wit.

-A

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Do not confuse our teaching on Original Sin and the results of actual sin, which we all commit in our lives (beyond the age of reason anyway). It is not the same thing. It is really nothing more than saying because of Adam, we are all born dirty, not holy. Because of what Jesus did for us all, Baptism can clean that up as well as any actual sin we may commit prior to Baptism. Of course infants and young children cannot sin, for they are without reason. But they inherit as we all do the fallen nature, a lack of holiness. That is Original Sin.

 

[jkotinek]

When it comes to the doctrine of the origin of sin, does orthodoxy teach that we inherited our sinful nature from Adam?

Howdy RVincent!

Perhaps the best analogy I've heard to describe the Orthodox teaching on original sin and the Fall of Man goes something like this:

Think Adam and Eve as residents in a huge house where everyday they get to sit by the fireplace and be warm. They know that as long as they stay in the house that all of their needs will be met; they also know that if they leave the house they cannot come back in. Yet, one day they decide to venture out of the house. Once outside they realize that it is cold and hostile and, as they were warned, they cannot get back into the house. When they start to have children, those children are born outside of the house because that is where the parents are; they do not share any personal guilt for leaving the house, but they share in the consequences.

One of the more commonly misunderstood aspects of this story is that banishment from Paradise was not a punishment that God inflicted on mankind. The Original Sin did not put mankind in a position where God's sense of righteousness needed to be satiated (as some theories of Atonement propose). In fact, God gives (first) Adam and (then) Eve the opportunity to take responsibility for their sin, but both pass the buck, breaking communion with God.

Human beings were created for Paradise, and it is believed that once our forebears had reached a level of maturity where they would be able to handle the Knowledge of Good & Evil, they would have been granted to eat from that tree. As it was, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God and then refusing to repent, so God sent them out of Paradise before they could eat of the second tree from which they had been forbidden: the Tree of Life. Had they consumed that fruit while in a state of broken communion, they would have been eternally sinful.

If you are a parent, perhaps you understand the analogy of telling a child not to touch a hot stove because it will burn them. When the child touches the stove, you don't go and then hold their hand against it, but the child understands then that being burned is the consequence of touching a hot stove. Likewise, God didn't say if you eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil I'm going to kill you, He said we would be subject to Death. When Adam & Eve sinned, they invited Death into the world and were made subject to him. Christ's Incarnation made possible our created intent, our reunion with God, and when He died he entered Hades and destroyed Death, freeing us from that curse.

So, to wrap this up...when God sent Adam & Eve out of Paradise, he sent the rest of creation with us because it is our life support system. When Christ was Incarnated, He transformed reality and restores not only us, but all of creation to its created intent. When we participate in that transformed reality and Christ's greace through the sacraments (transformed creation: have both a spiritual and physical component) that is living the Kingdom of God.

 

[Ouch]

Hi (enters room), mind if I join?

jkotinek had a very well thought out post, certainly with many good points. As humans we do live with the consequences of man's original actions. We were cut off from the tree of life because we sinned, and you are correct in saying that death was the consequence. However I take issue with your basic premise that we were created for Paradise. Here comes my logic, let's see if it goes anywhere.

God created us, and God never fails. We are obviously not in Paradise at the moment (unless Kentucky beats North Carolina saturday), so it would seem that God failed, if his intent was creating us for Paradise. Additionally, it makes no sense that he would have created a world outside the garden if we were only intended to stay in the garden. Now I make no claims as to exact knowledge of the mind of God, but I know that the Bible does not say anything about the hypothesis that we would have eventually become mature enough to eat of the tree of good and evil. When adam and eve eat the fruit of the tree, God does not say "They were not ready to eat from the tree," but rather he says, basically, that man became like one of us, so we can't let him live forever.

So it seems to me that there just isn't any evidence to label someone a sinner (note I didn't say sinful) at birth. Because if you did, you would have to label Jesus a 'sinner' at birth, which he obviously wasn't. Now I have read in places that we get around that by saying Mary was excused, or was also not a sinner somehow. I'm definitely not saying I know a whole lot about that subject, but where in the Bible do we find things that say this? Because if they aren't in there (I really would like to know), then it seems like you must either label Jesus a sinner or discard any reason to label people 'sinners' at birth.

Oh, and if anyone has read this far, I am not one of those that thinks you must believe as I do to get to heaven. I trust that the grace of God will cover the right of us and the wrong of us on this issue, because in the grand scheme it really doesn't matter as much as trusting Christ and representing him to the world. But please, continue the discussion, it certainly isn't useless!

 

[tigersnare]

So it seems to me that there just isn't any evidence to label someone a sinner (note I didn't say sinful) at birth. Because if you did, you would have to label Jesus a 'sinner' at birth, which he obviously wasn't.

I dont think you would, as he was not in Adam(born from the seed of man), but a type of Adam. All together a different being as for as natures go. Romans 5

 

[Ouch]

I sat down and read through Romans 5, and I don't quite see it talking about the difference between the nature in man and the nature in Christ. It seems like Luke, in chapter 3, takes his geneaology of Jesus all the way back to Adam to show that Jesus is certainly a human and a real, fleshly incarnation, just like the men before him.

Another question I have is how can you reconcile saying children are sinners at birth with Jesus' references to their innocence and to "not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14). It seems to me that saying they were sinners at birth doesn't really fit with what Jesus was saying. Emphasis on "it seems to me."

 

[armothe]

Think Adam and Eve as residents in a huge house where everyday they get to sit by the fireplace and be warm. They know that as long as they stay in the house that all of their needs will be met; they also know that if they leave the house they cannot come back in. Yet, one day they decide to venture out of the house. Once outside they realize that it is cold and hostile and, as they were warned, they cannot get back into the house. When they start to have children, those children are born outside of the house because that is where the parents are; they do not share any personal guilt for leaving the house, but they share in the consequences.

Do we ever return to back inside the house? Is this not what Christ does for us? If so, then what about our childiren who are born to us while we are back inside the house?

-A

 

[armothe]

I dont think you would, as he was not in Adam(born from the seed of man), but a type of Adam. All together a different being as for as natures go. Romans 5

This is a crafty argument conjured up by the proponents of inherited sin. No biblical support what-so-ever.

Please tell me how Christ was not born in Adam? I assume Mary had a father which was a descendant of Adam?

For Christ not to have been born of Adam (seed of man) He would have just had to have appeared out of nowhere!

Which brings us to the next logical conclusion of the proponents argument: that sin is passed on through the male's DNA. Upon conception the sin chomosones of the female are not passed on whereas the sin chromosones from the male are. A simply amazing feat with no scientific support at all!

-A

 

[holyrokker]

This is a crafty argument conjured up by the proponents of inherited sin. No biblical support what-so-ever.

Please tell me how Christ was not born in Adam? I assume Mary had a father which was a descendant of Adam?

For Christ not to have been born of Adam (seed of man) He would have just had to have appeared out of nowhere!

Which brings us to the next logical conclusion of the proponents argument: that sin is passed on through the male's DNA. Upon conception the sin chomosones of the female are not passed on whereas the sin chromosones from the male are. A simply amazing feat with no scientific support at all!

-A

Exactly. This would also make sin a physical problem, not a moral problem. If Sin were a matter of a physical deformity, then Christ died in vain, for He could bring about physical healing without having gone to the cross.

Sin is a moral problem.

 

[jkotinek]

Howdy Ouch!

However I take issue with your basic premise that we were created for Paradise. Here comes my logic, let's see if it goes anywhere.

God created us, and God never fails. We are obviously not in Paradise at the moment (unless Kentucky beats North Carolina saturday), so it would seem that God failed, if his intent was creating us for Paradise.

Well, the alternative, according to that argument is that God created us to live in a sinful world. I don't think that would stand up to much scrutiny, however (mine or yours)...I think its far more plausible (and in accord with Scripture) that we were created for Paradise but walked out of it...

Additionally, it makes no sense that he would have created a world outside the garden if we were only intended to stay in the garden.

I think you're getting hung up in trying to figure out the mechanics of this...Recall that I said that that we are called to live in the Kingdom, it is the same physical creation, but a different spiritual reality. In this sense Paradise = perfect communion with God. My point was that all creation existed in this state prior to the fall, and because of us, all of creation was sent out of Paradise with us.

Now I make no claims as to exact knowledge of the mind of God, but I know that the Bible does not say anything about the hypothesis that we would have eventually become mature enough to eat of the tree of good and evil. When adam and eve eat the fruit of the tree, God does not say "They were not ready to eat from the tree," but rather he says, basically, that man became like one of us, so we can't let him live forever.

I was perhaps too vague, but the interpretation I presented is one perspective, though widely held and well-respected as it reflects the thinking of some of the greatest Christian theologians throughout the course of the history of the Church, but it certainly isn't dogmatic.

So it seems to me that there just isn't any evidence to label someone a sinner (note I didn't say sinful) at birth. Because if you did, you would have to label Jesus a 'sinner' at birth, which he obviously wasn't. Now I have read in places that we get around that by saying Mary was excused, or was also not a sinner somehow. I'm definitely not saying I know a whole lot about that subject, but where in the Bible do we find things that say this? Because if they aren't in there (I really would like to know), then it seems like you must either label Jesus a sinner or discard any reason to label people 'sinners' at birth.

I hope that this wasn't what you got from the perspective I posted; I wouldn't label someone a sinner either. Note my anecdote is supposed to illustrate that humankind is born into a fallen/sinful state, but aren't personally guilty of sin until they do, in fact sin.

My convoluted last paragraph was aslo intended to show that because the cause of that sinful state was the break of communion with God, because Christ restored that communion in His person, He was not sinful in the same sense as the rest of humanity.

I trust that the grace of God will cover the right of us and the wrong of us on this issue, because in the grand scheme it really doesn't matter as much as trusting Christ and representing him to the world. But please, continue the discussion, it certainly isn't useless!

Great observation.

 

[jkotinek]

Do we ever return to back inside the house? Is this not what Christ does for us? If so, then what about our childiren who are born to us while we are back inside the house?

-A

That is precisely what Christ makes possible, and what I described in the last paragraph about participating in His grace through the sacraments. Orthodox Christians recognize that there is no good reason (there is, in fact, beautiful precedent) to deny a child the opportunity to participate in that grace, which is why we baptize babies and commune them. As adults they have the ability to exercise their free will and continue to participate in that grace or not.

 

[Ouch]

Howdy Ouch!

Well, the alternative, according to that argument is that God created us to live in a sinful world. I don't think that would stand up to much scrutiny, however (mine or yours)...I think its far more plausible (and in accord with Scripture) that we were created for Paradise but walked out of it...

I don't know, I don't think the world in which we live made a difference when God created us, because the only thing I have ever read on the subject in the Bible seems we were made to praise him. That could certainly be possible even in a sinful world. You mention it being in accord with scripture that we were created for Paradise, could you give me a couple of examples? I would like to see the logic/hermeneutics.

I think you're getting hung up in trying to figure out the mechanics of this...Recall that I said that that we are called to live in the Kingdom, it is the same physical creation, but a different spiritual reality. In this sense Paradise = perfect communion with God. My point was that all creation existed in this state prior to the fall, and because of us, all of creation was sent out of Paradise with us.

I won't say much about this as I'm not sure how relevant the rest of creation is to whether or not man is born fallen.

I was perhaps too vague, but the interpretation I presented is one perspective, though widely held and well-respected as it reflects the thinking of some of the greatest Christian theologians throughout the course of the history of the Church, but it certainly isn't dogmatic.

Hehehe, I don't know of which theologians you speak, but perhaps my argument is with them then. Get them an account on here!!! I don't think there is anything wrong with theorizing outside the bounds of scriptural knowledge, but I wouldn't put any weight on the conclusions.

I hope that this wasn't what you got from the perspective I posted; I wouldn't label someone a sinner either. Note my anecdote is supposed to illustrate that humankind is born into a fallen/sinful state, but aren't personally guilty of sin until they do, in fact sin.

I guess the only real disagreement is with a picky little label. I believe that we live under a different set of circumstances than Adam and Eve, and that is the world we are born into. I guess I just don't consider it fallen, I would say different. But, as far as Original Sin goes, looking at a few of the first web sites that popped up on the old search engine, they described it as: a hereditary stain and a share in the condemnation of Adam's guilt. Your definition, from your above quote (albeit a short one), doesn't seem to connect babies with sin as much as it connects the world with sin.

My convoluted last paragraph was aslo intended to show that because the cause of that sinful state was the break of communion with God, because Christ restored that communion in His person, He was not sinful in the same sense as the rest of humanity.

Christ didn't restore that communion until his death and resurrection for our sins. So I wouldn't say he was any different that any other human when he was born, because otherwise you see to be saying that the restoration of Christ was retroactive to his birthday but it only affected him. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[fr raphael vereshack]

Dear jkotinek:
You have asked via my private email whether I could answer the questions that Mr Ouch(!) asked. First of all I am certainly no expert on these questions. I am only a fellow traveller along with others. However if I can make a point or two to indicate a possible line of thought- all the better & thanks be to God. Also- it has been awhile since I posted to this forum so I'm not sure whether I am actually answering you now.
When ouch writes, "God created us, and God never fails. We are obviously not in Paradise at the moment (unless Kentucky beats North Carolina saturday), so it would seem that God failed, if his intent was creating us for Paradise. Additionally, it makes no sense that he would have created a world outside the garden if we were only intended to stay in the garden," this overlooks the crucial role of free will in achieving salvation. God creates us by His will. But when He creates us He also creates us with our own distinct will. This is what allowed Adam & Eve to make their choice regarding the Tree. But even though Adam & Eve fell it does not mean God failed in His aim of our salvation- this is why Christ came and we have His Body the Church so that through it we may freely attain salvation. Without free will there is no such thing as salvation.
Ouch then writes, "Now I make no claims as to exact knowledge of the mind of God, but I know that the Bible does not say anything about the hypothesis that we would have eventually become mature enough to eat of the tree of good and evil. When adam and eve eat the fruit of the tree, God does not say "They were not ready to eat from the tree," but rather he says, basically, that man became like one of us, so we can't let him live forever."
Scripture does tell us clearly that God commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from the Tree of good & evil. But why not? The answer provided by jkotinek about Adam & Eve lacking maturity is found in St Irenaeus of Lyons a holy father of the early Church. This answer is also found in other holy fathers through the centuries of Church history. This answer has to do with what is implied in the Scripture but not clearly spelled out: ie if God created all in the garden good then why would He have commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from this tree? It could not be because the tree itself was evil. So what was it? The holy fathers inspired by the Holy Spirit understood that it was not that the tree was evil but rather that humanity needed to humbly grow spiritually in order to partake of this fruit. It is like that often in our spiritual life- too much all at once and we throw up spiritually. Not to mention the pride involved when we bite off more than we can chew. And aren't we told clearly that pride was the essential sin that led to the Fall?
About, "I sat down and read through Romans 5, and I don't quite see it talking about the difference between the nature in man and the nature in Christ. It seems like Luke, in chapter 3, takes his geneaology of Jesus all the way back to Adam to show that Jesus is certainly a human and a real, fleshly incarnation, just like the men before him."
Christ as incarnate is fully man- except for sin for as God He is sinless. This is fundamental to Christian faith for without this we could not attain salvation. Perhaps I am missing ouch's point here. In any case if the question was along the lines of "don't we need to say that Christ is sinful if we are saying He is reallly & truly incarnate?"- then the answer is no. Human nature is not inherently sinful- in fact as the holy fathers explain sin is not 'natural' at all, rather it is a distortion of the nature God created us with and is fundamentally un-natural. So Christ is indeed the New Adam & in Him we find our true life.
I hope this has been of some help. In any case there's no 'final answer'. Keep reading & praying.
In Christ- Fr Raphael Vereshack

 

[jkotinek]

Ouch-

I hope that you'll forgive my not answering directly, as some of the questions you asked are best answered by a priest, someone who is far more familiar with the sort of proof that you are looking for. Since my initial inclination was to direct you to a priest, I thought it might be helpful if I could get one to answer here on the thread. I would also encourage you, should you want to delve deeper into the Orthodox understanding of the fall and original sin, to look up a local Orthodox priest and talk with him about it.

Fr. Raphael-

I appreciate your taking the time to help with these questions.

 

[tigersnare]

To summarize my view: We can never "acheive" righteousness by doing "good" - Once a person sins, there is no going back and "undoing" that sin.

Romans 5:12
Therefore as sin came into the world through on man...
15
For if many died through one man's tresspass....
18
Therefore, as one trespass led to codemnation for all men.....
19
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners...

It seems to me that once a person is born there is no going back, because you never had the chance to not sin.

The only way of being considered righteous is to be forgiven. In being forgiven, there is no longer any guilt held against us.
Romans 4:5 says: "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Being forgiven does not equate us with being rightous. Our forgiveness come from Christ drinking the cup of God's wrath, his death.
Romans 5:8-10
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.....


Our rightousness come from Christ perfect obedience, his life.
Romans 5:19
......so by one man's obedeince the many will be made righteous.

If I trust in Christ - I have met all the requirements of being righteous.

What about Christ do you trust?

God doesn't just treat me like I'm righteous - He actually considers me righteous. It boggles my mind that His grace is such that a sinner like me can meet the full requirements of righteousnessness simply by trusting Christ!

Yes, he does consider us righteous because we are "in" Christ, clothed in his righteousness, which is none of our own. Which makes one ask the question if they are justified on account of their faith, as in, does your faith justify you?



Ok now back to imputed sin, wouldn't it now make sense that the first half of the passages I quoted in Romans would be talking about our imputed sin from Adam, when the second half of each of them is referring to our imputed righteousness from Christ?

 

[tigersnare]

I sat down and read through Romans 5, and I don't quite see it talking about the difference between the nature in man and the nature in Christ.

We'll come back to this later...

It seems like Luke, in chapter 3, takes his geneaology of Jesus all the way back to Adam to show that Jesus is certainly a human and a real, fleshly incarnation, just like the men before him.

You realize Luke traced this genealogy starting with Joseph, Jesus's non biological father, there is nothing "just like like the men before him" about being born of a virgin and being concieved by the holy spirit.

Another question I have is how can you reconcile saying children are sinners at birth with Jesus' references to their innocence and to "not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14). It seems to me that saying they were sinners at birth doesn't really fit with what Jesus was saying. Emphasis on "it seems to me."

We dont' need to reconcile the two because Jesus is not making a reference to their innocence in either passage.

I think Mark and Luke shed some clear light on the jist of this text.
Luke 18:14
"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the others; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted"

Mark 10:15
Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

I think the emphasis was the attituded of the children verses adults who have a hard time being humble and fully trusting in God.

 

[Ouch]

When ouch writes, "(removed for length)" this overlooks the crucial role of free will in achieving salvation. God creates us by His will. But when He creates us He also creates us with our own distinct will. This is what allowed Adam & Eve to make their choice regarding the Tree. But even though Adam & Eve fell it does not mean God failed in His aim of our salvation- this is why Christ came and we have His Body the Church so that through it we may freely attain salvation. Without free will there is no such thing as salvation.

Oops, I hope I haven't overlooked free will, in that I also believe that God created us with a free will. Which is why I don't quite understand why it is necessary to discuss "original sin." We all screw up of our own free will. I certainly wasn't intending to say anything against or ignore anything about free will.

Ouch then writes, "Now I make no claims as to exact knowledge of the mind of God, but I know that the Bible does not say anything about the hypothesis that we would have eventually become mature enough to eat of the tree of good and evil. When adam and eve eat the fruit of the tree, God does not say "They were not ready to eat from the tree," but rather he says, basically, that man became like one of us, so we can't let him live forever."
Scripture does tell us clearly that God commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from the Tree of good & evil. But why not? The answer provided by jkotinek about Adam & Eve lacking maturity is found in St Irenaeus of Lyons a holy father of the early Church. This answer is also found in other holy fathers through the centuries of Church history. This answer has to do with what is implied in the Scripture but not clearly spelled out: ie if God created all in the garden good then why would He have commanded Adam & Eve not to eat from this tree? It could not be because the tree itself was evil. So what was it? The holy fathers inspired by the Holy Spirit understood that it was not that the tree was evil but rather that humanity needed to humbly grow spiritually in order to partake of this fruit. It is like that often in our spiritual life- too much all at once and we throw up spiritually. Not to mention the pride involved when we bite off more than we can chew. And aren't we told clearly that pride was the essential sin that led to the Fall?

That was the information I was interested in. Thank you for taking the time to educate me on the history of that particular thought. However, even though the holy fathers had the holy spirit with them, I don't think they were infallible. Simply looking at their Greek manuscripts we can see that there are times when Origen and the Diatesseron omit items that Jerome and Augustine include. So, for me(see, not trying to slander), this particular theory remains a theory. I never said it wasn't possible, because maybe that is what God wanted. But, as you said, the theory is based on inferences beyond the text.

About, "I sat down and read through Romans 5, and I don't quite see it talking about the difference between the nature in man and the nature in Christ. It seems like Luke, in chapter 3, takes his geneaology of Jesus all the way back to Adam to show that Jesus is certainly a human and a real, fleshly incarnation, just like the men before him."
Christ as incarnate is fully man- except for sin for as God He is sinless. This is fundamental to Christian faith for without this we could not attain salvation.

I wouldn't ever say anything other than that Jesus was born sinless. But I am saying that, without a doctrine of Original Sin, we don't need to make an exception for Jesus being different from the rest of humanity at the time of his birth. Yes, Jesus was God, but he was God's incarnation into man. It seems unfair to label God's perfect incarnation anything other than a perfect man, and by that I mean a man just like all other men.

Perhaps I am missing ouch's point here. In any case if the question was along the lines of "don't we need to say that Christ is sinful if we are saying He is reallly & truly incarnate?"- then the answer is no. Human nature is not inherently sinful- in fact as the holy fathers explain sin is not 'natural' at all, rather it is a distortion of the nature God created us with and is fundamentally un-natural. So Christ is indeed the New Adam & in Him we find our true life.
I hope this has been of some help. In any case there's no 'final answer'. Keep reading & praying.
In Christ- Fr Raphael Vereshack

Saying that human nature is not inherently sinful seems to me to be saying that we aren't born that way, it is our free choice. But I am pleased you took time out of your schedule serving God to give me some answers to questions, I have respect for the years you have dedicated to God.

Oh, and jkotinek, thanks for giving me a great chance to learn!

 

[tigersnare]

Ouch, please beleive me when I say I am not trying to offend you or undermine you.

From what I'm reading, your view of sin is one that has come up in the history of the Church very early on. It might be to your benefit to read up on Augustine vs Pelagius if you have not already.

 

[Glisten]

I would say: Yes, it is a physical problem in that the war between our will and the power of sin is waged in our members. Rom 7

And we know that we are born with this problem from Gen 8:21.

But, I would not say genetic, I would say it is the "human condition". There has only been one person preserved from it, and therefore her offspring was as well free from it.

But, I guess you could say that it is a physical problem, one that is so severe that our spirits, as unredeemed, can't overcome it.

" Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

We have both the fleshly desires that are within all of us, in addition to influence of sinful people around us.