Do Humans have a Sinful Nature or Sinful Inclinations?

 

Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine various terminologies used to describe humans' relationship with sin from birth. In this examination, we will look at the Biblical data, the semantic domain of words, and early Christian history to formulate what we believe to be the most accurate, helpful, and precise terminology for the human relationship to sin from birth. 

WHY DOES THIS QUESTION MATTER?

This question matters because words matter and they have meaning. Therefore, how we use them is critically important. People who deny inherited Adamic guilt will often make statements like the following: 

"God doesn't hold anyone else guilty for Adam's sin. Babies are innocent from conception. But we do have a sinful nature from birth."

It's this terminology of "sinful nature" that we have a problem with. We believe it's an imprecise, unhelpful, and easily misunderstood term used to describe our relationship with sin from conception. Christians who affirm the innocence and guiltlessness of infants from conception and the idea that Adam's guilt isn't imputed to his progeny would be best off abandoning this term. But why? To answer this question, let's define the words "sinful" and "nature". 

WHAT DOES SINFUL COMMONLY MEAN?

Merriam Webster: "1: tainted with, marked by, or full of sin : WICKED"

Dictionary.com: "1. characterized by, guilty of, or full of sin; wicked:"

Collins Dictionary: "1. If you describe someone or something as sinful, you mean that they are wicked or immoral."

"2. full of or characterized by sin; wicked; immoral"

"3. characterized by, guilty of, or full of sin; wicked"

Oxford Learner's: "1. morally wrong or evil"

Webster 1828: "1. Tainted with sin; wicked; iniquitous; criminal; unholy; as sinful men. Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity! Isaiah 1:4."

Free Dictionary: "1. Marked by or full of sin; wicked: sinful thoughts."

WHAT DOES NATURE COMMONLY MEAN? 

Britannica: "3: a basic quality that something has" 

Collins: "2: The nature of something is its basic quality or character."

Cambridge: "the type or main characteristic (of something):"

Dictionary.com: "8: the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character:"

Oxford Learner’s: "4: the basic qualities of a thing"

Free Dictionary: "4: The basic character or qualities of humanity"

"6: The set of inherent characteristics or properties that distinguish something:"

Webster 1828: "3. The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it what it is;"

 

OUR CONCERN

Our concern with the term "sinful nature" is that when you study what these words mean, they convey the opposite of innocence and guiltlessness. How so? Recall the statement we made earlier: 

"God doesn't hold anyone else guilty for Adam's sin. Babies are innocent from conception. But we do have a sinful nature from birth."

The problem with statements like this is that, according to common definitions, the term "sinful nature" actually conveys the idea that humans have the basic quality, main characteristic, inherent property, essence, and attribute of being full of sin, wicked, immoral, marked by sin, and guilty of sin. 

Yet, this term is often seen next to statements from pastors and theologians saying that newly conceived infants are innocent and not yet guilty. Therefore, the term "sinful nature" is highly problematic, imprecise, and doesn't convey what is often meant when used in conjunction with viewing infants as innocent.

OUR RESOLUTION 

Our resolution is that a term like "sinful inclinations" is more appropriate and precise. This term encompasses the idea that the human relationship to sin is characterized by an inclination, temptation, tendency, and proclivity to sin. This inclination is ultimately rooted in the flesh. We cover that concept more in-depth in our article here. This term removes sinfulness as something that is a default attribute, property, and quality of the human ontological essence. Instead, sinfulness is a temptation that all humans are inclined to inevitably fall into. But sinfulness and guilt as a consequence is not, however, a universal ontological truth of the human condition from conception. This idea coincides with our understanding that guilt is attributed to actions rather than temptations and inclinations. 

Let's see if this concept aligns with Scripture. 

SIN CHARACTERIZED AS A TEMPTATION IN THE BIBLE

Gen 4:6-7 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mar 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. 

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Throughout the Bible, the human relationship to sin is often characterized by a temptation that's rooted in the flesh. This temptation is what brings forth sin. The first chapter of James most succinctly summarizes this idea. The Bible also speaks of sinful temptations originating from external forces as a symptom of our fallen world. 

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 

Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. 

1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

1Th 3:5 For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain.

In the Bible, these external sinful temptations are often rooted in the devil. This shows that we have sinful temptations both internally and externally. 

WHAT IS THE "LUSTS OF THE FLESH"? 

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Gal 5:16-17 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

The lusts of the flesh are sinful longing and desires. Peter says that these lusts war against the soul. This indicates that these lusts are not rooted in our soul which is given by God. Rather, they are rooted in the flesh which descends from Adam. To read more about the origin of the human soul, check out our article here. Therefore, our sinful inclinations don't inherently speak to the ontological and spiritual condition of our souls from conception. These verses become more clear when we compare them to what James says. 

Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death 

James defines more precisely what our fleshly lusts are. He says that they are temptations. We are tempted when we are drawn away after our lusts. It's these lusts that bring forth sin when we yield to temptation. Therefore, one way to speak of the lusts of the flesh is to say that they are temptations of the flesh according to James. This fact vindicates our term of sinful inclinations as opposed to sinful nature. 

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

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

Furthermore, we know it's a fact that everyone sins. This fact, combined with the understanding that sin is characterized as a temptation, is how we gather that sinfulness is an inclination, proclivity, and tendency that all humans inevitably fall into rather than an inherent essence, attribute, and property of being that all humans have from conception. 

 DOES THE BIBLE EVER CHARACTERIZE SIN AS A NATURE?

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

The underlying Greek word for nature "phusis" only appears fourteen times in the New Testament. It's never directly connected to sin. On the contrary, some actions and sins are against nature. Those without the law were doing the things contained in the law by nature. Additionally, nature informs us about what's proper and improper. So not only is sin not directly connected to nature, but there are instances where sin is said to be against nature and righteousness is said to coincide with nature. These facts further indicate that the term "sinful nature" is not an optimal term. 

THE HISTORIC PRECEDENT FOR "SINFUL INCLINATIONS" AS AN APPROPRIATE TERM

We will now examine historical precedent for the appropriateness of the term "sinful inclinations".  The citations we provide will highlight the following points: 

1. Humans are explicitly said to not be evil or sinful by nature or necessity of existence. 

2. Rather, we inevitably become that way because of... 

3. Sin which is the result of abused faculties, inclinations, habits, and temptations.  

4. Therefore, the human relationship to sin is better described as an inclination rather than a nature. 

We believe this historical precedent, combined with Biblical data and word definitions, provides a compelling case for accepting "sinful inclinations" rather than "sinful nature" as the best term to describe the human relationship to sin.

Ignatius of Antioch, ? AD - 108 AD

"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life...The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us." - Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 5, Longer Version

Irenaeus of Lyon, 130 AD - 202 AD 

"But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets." - Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVII

Clement of Alexandria, 150 AD - 215 AD 

“And neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right, when the soul has not the power of inclination and disinclination, but evil is involuntary. Whence he who prevents is a cause; while he who prevents not judges justly the soul’s choice. So in no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins, and a mistaken judgment sometimes prevails, from which, since it is ignorance and stupidity, we do not take pains to recede, punishments are rightly inflicted.” - The Stromata, Book I, Chapter XVII

 

Origen of Alexandria, 185 AD - 253 AD

“For it is not the nature in us which is the cause of the evil, but it is the voluntary choice which worketh evil; and so our nature is not the cause of righteousness, as if it were incapable of admitting unrighteousness, but it is the principle which we have admitted that makes men righteous; for also you never see the kinds of things in the water changing from the bad kinds of fishes into the good, or from the better kind to the worse; but you can always behold the righteous or evil among men either coming from wickedness to virtue, or returning from progress towards virtue to the flood of wickedness.” - Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Parable XI

 

Methodius of Olympus, 250 AD - 311 AD 

“Well, then, the connection of these names with substance is owing to its accidents. For murder is not a substance, nor is any other evil; but the substance receives a cognate name from putting it into practice. For a man is not (spoken of as) murder, but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer, without being himself murder; and, to speak concisely, no other evil is a substance; but by practising any evil, it can be called evil. Similarly consider, if you imagine anything else to be the cause of evil to men, that it too is evil by reason of its acting by them, and suggesting the committal of evil. For a man is evil in consequence of his actions.” - Concerning Free Will,  ANF06.607

"Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God." - Concerning Free Will,  ANF06.610  

“For if good be opposed to evil, and unrighteousness be evil, and this be opposed to righteousness and righteousness be good, and good be hostile to evil, and evil be unlike to good, then righteousness is different from unrighteousness. And therefore God is not the cause of evils, nor does He rejoice in evils. Nor does reason commend them, being good. If, then, any are evil, they are evil in accordance with the wants and desires of their minds, and not by necessity. “They perish self-destroyed, By their own fault.” - Discourse VIII, Chapter XVI 

Lactantius, 240 AD - 320 AD

"We should be free from vices and sin. For no one is born sinful, but if our affections are given to that direction they can become vices and sinful, but if we use our affections well they become virtues." - Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter XVI

 

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 300 AD - 320 AD

"Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from them." - Homily VIII, Chapter XVI

Eusebius of Caesarea, 260 AD - 340 AD 

"The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature." - The Christian Examiner, Volume One, 1824 Edition, p. 66

Cyril of Jerusalem, 313 AD - 386 AD 

"And you must know your soul to be endowed with free-will, and to be God’s fairest work in the image of himself. It is immortal in as far as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creature not subject to decay, because these qualities have been bestowed by God upon it. And it has the power to do what it chooses. For you do not sin because you were born that way, nor if you fornicate is it by chance. And do not take any notice of what some people say, that the conjunctions of the stars compel you to fall into unclean living. Why should you avoid acknowledging that you have done wrong by blaming it onto the stars that had nothing to do with it?" - Catechetical Lectures, IV.18 

“There is not a class of souls sinning by nature, and a class of souls practising righteousness by nature:  but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only, and alike in all.” - Catechetical Lectures, IV.20 

“The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou acceptest it; if thou wilt not, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness:  since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” - Catechetical Lectures, IV.21

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 350 AD - 428 AD

“The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following.  Men sin, they say, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because made by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because of his ill conduct and sin. He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by nature that men became sinners after having been good by nature. It is in their nature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin. The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infants, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Adam, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends to all his descendants. They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible body for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confirmation of their own opinion. They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind.” - Photius’ Bibliotheca, 177, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Against the defenders of Original sin,  para. 3-4

“the end of the first volume...which he [Theodore] composed against those who say that sin is present by nature.” - Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part, 162-73, memra 39  

 

That's all for now. Thank you for engaging with this article!