What is the "Sin Nature?"

Theology
142

@Pater15 McGill

I sure hope I’m not sticking my nose in where it is uninvited, but I’m going to offer an idea heretofore not mentioned (I think! This thread is 140 posts in length, so I may have forgotten some of it. If so, I apologize for the duplication.) I do think what I offer is germane to the question “What is the sin nature?”

In my 70 years of experience, I observe how the life-path of a given person is affected by the amount of truth that individual believes, but also, how much un-truth that individual believes. I observe one who believes much truth has a much more prosperous disposition than one who believes much lie. It is this capacity to believe the lie that I’m asking you to consider.

The specific results of believing non-truth may not be precisely predictable, but the general quality of that life sure is. The more un-truth a person accepts as verity, the greater shipwreck the life will become. This would be so easy to prove that it does not deserve the ink it would take to do so. Believing non-truth is much more damaging than not believing truth, if you see my distinction. Infants do not believe much that is true, but neither to they believe things that are not true. I think there is a strong connection between “believing truth and non-truth” and the “knowledge of good and evil”.

Here’s the part I think may be new to this thread. I posit that Good God created His tabernacle (mankind) gifting him with the wild (unbridled) capacity to believe (accept as real); God formed him with an unrestricted (hands-off) faculty to accept both Truth as real, and non-truth as real. Man created in this wild condition is “very good” because it is just, honorable, and demonstrates God’s holy humility (sorry if that term derails your thoughts). Holy God aided this wild-man by providing him intimate fellowship with The Truth; He demonstrated what is real by His very presence, and through their friendly conversation. Man had no reason to believe anything un-true because he was daily intimate with The Truth. That is, until…. until the architect of lies (un-truths) gave him one. The adoption of a lie as verity was unexplored territory for the wild-man. It sang siren songs from a dark cave of inexperience, the mouth of the cave promising what the depths of it did not have to give. The grass appeared greener on the other side of the proverbial fence, even though this grass did not grow from the source of Truth.

The point is, the capacity to believe is a “very good” aspect of the man made in the image of God. The very ability to entertain, and accept truth brings with it the necessisary ability to entertain and reject lie. But even that which is “very good” can be hijacked by simply failing to consult the source of Good and Truth. We would have a very different story if after listening to the serpent, Eve would have said, “Wait here, let me ask my husband”, and Adam would have said to Eve, “Wait here, let me ask my Father”.

You and I are also created in God’s image, we also have the capacity (if not the proclivity) to readily accept any shiny trinket as being rare and valuable treasure. “Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. (James 1:14). What a different trajectory our lives would own if at each enticement we would simply say, “Wait here, let me ask my Father; let me consult His word”.

KP

143

There is a ton of insightful wisdom in this entire post, but this brought tears to my eyes.

We can ask why there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. We might also ask why there was the tree of life as well. Perhaps just the act of them asking the Father would have validated both their freedom and their love, and perhaps God would have invited them to eat from the tree of life.

Thanks for posting @KPuff . Your contributions are always appreciated.

144

This. So true. We see it everywhere.

145

Here @PeterC kicks the can out of the terrestrial and into the celestial.

Nice kick Pastor!

Because we can believe (the Bible says so) that evil on the earth has it’s roots that weren’t formed on the earth.

Which presents us with some additional conundrums. I’ll repeat, I’ve heard people say that Lucifer knew God very well. But then I ask, how can that be, if he supposed he could take God’s place? Seems he didn’t know God very well at all.

It seems more likely that he knew just a little bit about God, and he supposed that he could make himself greater than the little bit he knew about God. And when God told him to keep his place, he decided he’d do better to lead a rebellion instead.

He didn’t believe God either.

God could have just destroyed Lucifer. This is a point that Dr Peckham also makes, and I’m sure others. But what would the rest of the universe conclude by God’s violent erasure of the proud upstart?

Never mess with God. He’ll wipe you out.

Rather than that, God decreed a measured, systematic, comprehensive revelation of Himself, and His maximal greatness. And He began this measured, systematic, comprehensive revelation of Himself by speaking - “Let there be light.”

God described Himself as “love”. Then, He proved it. For all time. Praise His holy Name!

1 Like
146

First, thanks for this. It really got me thinking. The sin, the lie, as we both noted, is pride—the creaturely assertion of “I will make myself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). You argue that Lucifer could not have had a full, comprehensive understanding of God’s infinite power and nature. That if Lucifer truly understood God’s absolute omnipotence and character, rebellion would be absurd. Thus, Lucifer’s pride was born of partial knowledge; he mistook his high creaturely status for something comparable to God.

We agree. Satan, Lucifer, and all the Angels are created beings. Of course they cannot possibly understand the Creator. They see Him better than we. His true essence, at least, logically speaking, but this does not mean they know God any better than we do through His own Word.

Why God Didn’t Instantly Destroy Satan (Cosmic Controversy / Moral Demonstration): We absolutely agree that if God had instantly annihilated Lucifer, the remaining angelic host would serve God out of fear of erasure, not out of genuine love, trust, or understanding of God’s character. Power can crush a rebel, but it cannot win a heart or vindicate righteousness.

I love the way you painted the picture of the Cross as the ultimate, undeniable proof of God’s character, proving to the entire cosmos that God is not a coercive tyrant, but self-sacrificing love.

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter

147

I love the recent conversation here. I will add one small thing to it, if I may.

When we say “Why didn’t God just destroy His enemy?”, I can faintly hear (between the lines and behind the words) “because that is what I would have done in His shoes”. This tacit admission I often hear in my own words too, but when I do, I am immediately reminded:

Look my beloved son, don’t forget “My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways, For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9).

That gentle reminder reassures me that Infinite God has plans, designs, purposes, and goals that I never have, nor ever would think of. If He doesn’t do something, even something I would do, I have confidence that He has some pretty good reason. (I know you know this too)

Now I know, this is not news to any of you, and I sure feel like an elementary school boy daring to instruct a college of university professors, but there is one advantage to being an elementary school boy, simple things still seem simple to me.

Much love

KP

1 Like
148

You may, nobody is stopping you from sharing or contributing brother.

J.

149

With all due respect, on August 19, 2026 you said:

so, out of respect for you, I said:

To date, I have kept my word (with the exception of this response).

KP

150

Shalom, wish you well in your journey.

J.

151

Just so brother. God is very much all about showing that enables knowing.

If we suppose that God had decreed to demonstrate Himself to His angelic host, in His maximal greatness, it may be true that He decided that it would be best to create a separate contextual framework that is completely different from the heavenly realms. Something the likes of which they had never seen before.

Different context, physical in nature, with a different type of personal beings, made somehow in His image.

This part of His plan might be a mystery to His new type of persons, up until He reveals His mysterious purpose.

Ephesians 3:
8 “Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ,
9. and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
10. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
11. according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

This new contextual framework would be one that He could enter into Himself, as Jesus Christ in the flesh, at just the right time, and demonstrate by His life and by His death and by His resurrection, just who and what very God actually is. What He’s really like. What real love is.

Or, He could have instantly destroyed Lucifer, which as we said, would have sent a different message.

152

Amen. And I love this.

The sad truth is, sometimes we can get so lost in the simplicity.

Peter

153

I appreciate your response. You have clearly captured the idea that human history is not merely an isolated experiment but a grand cosmic stage where God’s multifaceted wisdom (“manifold wisdom”) is put on display before all creation, both earthly and heavenly.

Amen!

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter