Charles Finney on Sinful Nature

[ElijahSK]

Men plead a sinful nature for their excuse. And pray, what is this sinful nature? Do you mean by it that every faculty and even the very essence of your constitution were poisoned and made sinful in Adam, and came down in this polluted state by inheritance to you? Do you mean that you were so born in sin that the substance of your being is all saturated with it, and so that all the faculties of your constitution are themselves sin? Do you believe this?

I admit if this were true, it would make out a hard case. A hard case indeed! Until the laws of my reason are changed, it would compel me to speak out openly and say--Lord, this is a hard case, that Thou shouldst make my nature itself a sinner, and then charge the guilt of its sin upon me! I could not help saying this; the deep echoings of my inner being would proclaim it without ceasing, and the breaking of ten thousand thunderbolts over my head would not deter me from thinking and saying so. The reason God has given me would forever affirm it.

But the dogma is an utter absurdity. For, pray, what is sin? God answers--"transgression of law." And now you hold that your nature is itself a breach of the law of God--nay, that it has always been a breach of God's law, from Adam to the day of your birth; you hold that the current of this sin came down in the veins and blood of your race--and who made it so? Who created the veins and blood of man? From whose hand sprang this physical constitution and this mental constitution? Was man his own creator? Did sin do a part of the work in creating your physical and your mental constitution? Do you believe any such thing? No; you ascribe your nature and its original faculties to God, and upon Him, therefore, you charge the guilty authorship of your "sinful nature."

But how strange a thing is this! If man is in fault for his sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is; but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers--of our intellect, our sensibility, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature. If you will observe, you will find that God has given no law prescribing what sort of nature and constitutional powers we should have. He has given no law on these points, the transgression of which, if given, might somewhat resemble the definition of sin. But now since there is no law about nature, nature cannot be a transgression.

Here let me say, that if God were to make a law prescribing what nature or constitution a man must have, it could not possibly be otherwise than unjust and absurd, for the reason that man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all. And yet thousands of men have held the dogma that sin consists in great part in having a sinful nature. Yes, through long ages of past history, grave theologians have gravely taught this monstrous dogma; it has resounded from pulpits, and has been stereotyped for the press, and men have seemed to be never weary of glorifying this dogma as the surest test of sound orthodoxy! Orthodoxy!! There never was a more infamous libel on Jehovah! It would be hard to name another dogma which more violently outrages common sense. It is nonsense--absurd and utter NONSENSE! I would to God that it were not even worse than nonsense! Think what mischief it has wrought! Think how it has scandalized the law, the government, and the character of God! Think how it has filled the mouths of sinners with excuses from the day of its birth to this hour!

Now I do not mean to imply that the men who have held this dogma have intelligently insulted God with it. I do not imply that they have been aware of the impious and even blasphemous bearings of this dogma upon Jehovah;--I am happy to think that some at least have done all this mischief ignorantly. But the blunder and the mischief have been none the less for the honest ignorance in which they were done.

Not much to say after that discourse, but now when I read Romans 6-8 and 1 John 3 and James 1 things start to come together.

[EricH]

Men plead a sinful nature for their excuse. And pray, what is this sinful nature? Do you mean by it that every faculty and even the very essence of your constitution were poisoned and made sinful in Adam, and came down in this polluted state by inheritance to you? Do you mean that you were so born in sin that the substance of your being is all saturated with it, and so that all the faculties of your constitution are themselves sin? Do you believe this?

I admit if this were true, it would make out a hard case. A hard case indeed! Until the laws of my reason are changed, it would compel me to speak out openly and say--Lord, this is a hard case, that Thou shouldst make my nature itself a sinner, and then charge the guilt of its sin upon me! I could not help saying this; the deep echoings of my inner being would proclaim it without ceasing, and the breaking of ten thousand thunderbolts over my head would not deter me from thinking and saying so. The reason God has given me would forever affirm it.

But the dogma is an utter absurdity. For, pray, what is sin? God answers--"transgression of law." And now you hold that your nature is itself a breach of the law of God--nay, that it has always been a breach of God's law, from Adam to the day of your birth; you hold that the current of this sin came down in the veins and blood of your race--and who made it so? Who created the veins and blood of man? From whose hand sprang this physical constitution and this mental constitution? Was man his own creator? Did sin do a part of the work in creating your physical and your mental constitution? Do you believe any such thing? No; you ascribe your nature and its original faculties to God, and upon Him, therefore, you charge the guilty authorship of your "sinful nature."

But how strange a thing is this! If man is in fault for his sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is; but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers--of our intellect, our sensibility, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature. If you will observe, you will find that God has given no law prescribing what sort of nature and constitutional powers we should have. He has given no law on these points, the transgression of which, if given, might somewhat resemble the definition of sin. But now since there is no law about nature, nature cannot be a transgression.

Here let me say, that if God were to make a law prescribing what nature or constitution a man must have, it could not possibly be otherwise than unjust and absurd, for the reason that man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all. And yet thousands of men have held the dogma that sin consists in great part in having a sinful nature. Yes, through long ages of past history, grave theologians have gravely taught this monstrous dogma; it has resounded from pulpits, and has been stereotyped for the press, and men have seemed to be never weary of glorifying this dogma as the surest test of sound orthodoxy! Orthodoxy!! There never was a more infamous libel on Jehovah! It would be hard to name another dogma which more violently outrages common sense. It is nonsense--absurd and utter NONSENSE! I would to God that it were not even worse than nonsense! Think what mischief it has wrought! Think how it has scandalized the law, the government, and the character of God! Think how it has filled the mouths of sinners with excuses from the day of its birth to this hour!

Now I do not mean to imply that the men who have held this dogma have intelligently insulted God with it. I do not imply that they have been aware of the impious and even blasphemous bearings of this dogma upon Jehovah;--I am happy to think that some at least have done all this mischief ignorantly. But the blunder and the mischief have been none the less for the honest ignorance in which they were done.

Not much to say after that discourse, but now when I read Romans 6-8 and 1 John 3 and James 1 things start to come together.

Finney's argument falls short in that God did not create human's with a sinful nature. They chose it when Adam sinned. It is thus inherited because of the actions of the orginal parents. Thus man is still wothout excuse, because man chose his own plight.

[ElijahSK]

Finney's argument falls short in that God did not create human's with a sinful nature. They chose it when Adam sinned. It is thus inherited because of the actions of the orginal parents. Thus man is still wothout excuse, because man chose his own plight.

Not that I wish to debate this. It may fall short in the second pargraph for that very reason. But that's definately not a blanket statement over the entire quote. In spite of that I would still find most of it pertinant to things we hold today. Anyway, I just thought this was one of the best quotes I've seen from someone who doesn't hold to the idea of a sinful nature. Hope you guys enjoy. Once I complete my study on this "sinful nature" I plan on making a new topic. This quote was one thing I passed by and decided to use as a teaser.

[ElijahSK]

FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION, THAT HUMAN NATURE IS IN ITSELF SINFUL.

The defenders of the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, or moral depravity, urge as an additional argument:--

That sin is a universal effect of human nature, and therefore human nature must be itself sinful. Answer,--

This is a non sequitur. Sin may be, and must be, an abuse of free agency; and this may be accounted for, as we shall see, by ascribing it to the universality of temptation, and does not at all imply a sinful constitution. But if sin necessarily implies a sinful nature, how did Adam and Eve sin? Had they a sinful nature to account for, and to cause their first sin? How did angels sin? Had they also a sinful nature? Either sin does not imply a sinful nature, or a nature in itself sinful, or Adam and angels must have had sinful natures before their fall.

Again: suppose we regard sin as an event or effect. An effect only implies an adequate cause. Free, responsible will is an adequate cause in the presence of temptation, without the supposition of a sinful constitution, as has been demonstrated in the case of Adam and of angels. When we have found an adequate cause, it is unphilosophical to look for and assign another.

Again: it is said that no motive to sin could be a motive or a temptation, if there were not a sinful taste, relish, or appetite, inherent in the constitution, to which the temptation or motive is addressed. For example, the presence of food, it is said, would be no temptation to eat, were there not a constitutional appetency terminating on food. So the presence of any object could be no inducement to sin, were there not a constitutional appetency or craving for sin. So that, in fact, sin in action were impossible, unless there were sin in the nature. To this I reply,--

Suppose this objection be applied to the sin of Adam and of angels. Can we not account for Eve's eating the forbidden fruit without supposing that she had a craving for sin? The Bible informs us that her craving was for the fruit, for knowledge, and not for sin. The words are,--"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." Here is nothing of a craving for sin. Eating this fruit was indeed sinful; but the sin consisted in consenting to gratify, in a prohibited manner, the appetites, not for sin, but for food and knowledge. But the advocates of this theory say, that there must be an adaptedness in the constitution, a something within answering to the outward motive or temptation, otherwise sin were impossible. This is true. But the question is, What is that something within, which responds to the outward motive? Is it a craving for sin? We have just seen what it was in the case of Adam and Eve. It was simply the correlation that existed between the fruit and their constitution, its presence exciting the desires for food and knowledge. This led to prohibited indulgence. But all men sin in precisely the same way. They consent to gratify, not a craving for sin, but a craving for other things, and the consent to make self-gratification an end, is the whole of sin.

This argument assumes as true, what on a former occasion we have seen to be false, namely, that sinners love sin for its own sake. If it could be true, total depravity would of necessity secure perfect blessedness. It would be the very state which the mind supremely loves for its own sake. The sinner could then say, not merely in the language of poetry, but in sober prose and fact, "Evil, be thou my good."

[Copper Scroll]

Finney's argument falls short in that God did not create human's with a sinful nature. They chose it when Adam sinned. It is thus inherited because of the actions of the orginal parents. Thus man is still wothout excuse, because man chose his own plight.

Not that I wish to debate this. It may fall short in the second pargraph for that very reason. But that's definately not a blanket statement over the entire quote. In spite of that I would still find most of it pertinant to things we hold today. Anyway, I just thought this was one of the best quotes I've seen from someone who doesn't hold to the idea of a sinful nature.

Any "debate" on this issue, I think, would be purely semantic. EricH has characterized "nature" as something a person can change (as I did on the other thread). Finney and ElijahSK define it as unchangeable and authored by God. We are dealing with different definitions of "nature" here. I think, most who teach the "dogma" of sinful nature would define nature the way EricH defines it. Finney's beef is with how that word "nature" is used. Nobody I know teaches or believes that God is the author of sin.

We say "sinful nature" meaning that we sin habitually and inevitably. Sin is not apart of our "nature", the way Finney defines "nature". But it is a habit of our race. Can we say "second nature"? It's like a disease. A baby could be born healthy, but she is bound to get sick at some point in her life. We say sickness is a natural part of life, even if we weren't born sick. Even if it is nearly inevitable, we do our best to avoid it. I hope this makes some sense. (And I hope I represented the two positions here fairly and accurately.)

[EricH]

Finney's argument falls short in that God did not create human's with a sinful nature. They chose it when Adam sinned. It is thus inherited because of the actions of the orginal parents. Thus man is still wothout excuse, because man chose his own plight.

Not that I wish to debate this. It may fall short in the second pargraph for that very reason. But that's definately not a blanket statement over the entire quote. In spite of that I would still find most of it pertinant to things we hold today. Anyway, I just thought this was one of the best quotes I've seen from someone who doesn't hold to the idea of a sinful nature.

Any "debate" on this issue, I think, would be purely semantic. EricH has characterized "nature" as something a person can change (as I did on the other thread). Finney and ElijahSK define it as unchangeable and authored by God. We are dealing with different definitions of "nature" here. I think, most who teach the "dogma" of sinful nature would define nature the way EricH defines it. Finney's beef is with how that word "nature" is used. Nobody I know teaches or believes that God is the author of sin.

We say "sinful nature" meaning that we sin habitually and inevitably. Sin is not apart of our "nature", the way Finney defines "nature". But it is a habit of our race. Can we say "second nature"? It's like a disease. A baby could be born healthy, but she is bound to get sick at some point in her life. We say sickness is a natural part of life, even if we weren't born sick. Even if it is nearly inevitable, we do our best to avoid it. I hope this makes some sense. (And I hope I represented the two positions here fairly and accurately.)

Actually I have defined "nature" as something that was changeable until actual sin entered the picture. Now that sin has entered the picture, that nature has been marred, and is unchangeable unless God intervenes

[ElijahSK]

And we know that upon us receiving salvation He intervened.