Nature verses Nurture OR The Nature of Sin

(CLICK YOUR BROWSERS "BACK" BUTTON  WHEN FINISHED)

Of all the Bible speaks to, who would think this would be an issue? The Bible is straightforward on this matter of sin. Yet, problems keep cropping up for many people. First, we have those who would make sin a disease. I have written extensively elsewhere on this topic and so will not pursue this issue here.

Then there are those who would have us believe that certain people are born a certain way. Therefore, they cannot help what they do. In other words, if we are by nature what we are, then there is no wrong-ness in what nature has made us to be and do.

There is a great appeal in all of this. It means that a person can be whatever he or she wants to be and do whatever he or she wants to do without being bothered by the conscience. There is no accountability in such a belief.

Among those who do not necessarily hold the Bible as true or Christ as Lord, there has been a heated controversy that has raged for years. It is the "nature versus nurture" debate. Those who hold to the nature theory claim that man is a product of his heredity, while those who hold to the nurture theory claim that man is a product of his environment.

It appears that right now it is "politically incorrect" to say that a person is involved in degenerate behavior because of his environment. Rather, the thinking is that he or she is born that way.

In America, science has become the final arbiter. Many Christian speakers refer to studies and quote secular authorities as evidence for what they are saying. It doesn’t seem to matter to many that the conclusions of such studies and authorities are often at odds with Scripture.

I understand that there are some 8,000 scientific papers produced every day in America and that fully one-fourth of them are fraudulent. Freud and Kinsey, among others, have been shown to have tampered with their research. And these are the authorities that are so often quoted.

How tiresome this is. The greatest minds of fallen man cannot agree on why man is the way he is. In their "wisdom," it hasn’t dawned on them that there is a simple answer in a simple place – that is, in the Bible.

All of this so-called "scientific knowledge" would be considered ludicrous by believers if some Christians weren’t caught up in it. Certain misguided souls have left the sure Word of God for the specious wisdom of man.

For example, sometime ago I purchased the three-volume set entitled The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, published by Inter-Varsity Press and Tyndale House Publishers. I was horrified to read the article on homosexuality in which the author said that the Bible does not condemn "a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners." I called the publishers and asked how they could include such an erroneous and heretical article in their set. All I got was a blustery "You will have to talk with the author." However, the publishers are responsible for what is included in their publications. I can only conclude that the publishers agree with the article’s author.

There is a certain allure about this. It allows for acceptance and avoids controversy and enables the people who espouse such beliefs to seem wise. Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, made it quite clear that carnality was an unacceptable practice for any Christian. But he went much further in the sixth chapter when he spelled out ten sins that, if practiced habitually, would bar the door to the Kingdom of God.

Paul was not referring to accidents of nature, but to volitional choices a person makes. True, fallen man can only make choices as to what degree of evil he will engage in. He is born with a propensity to sin. But with the Christian, it is not a propensity, but a choice!

What we have is a misconception about sin. It is an issue because there are those within our evangelical world embarrassed by what the Bible calls sin. To be "politically correct," they are attempting to redefine sin, basing their conclusions on a psychological perspective rather than on a Biblical one.

Let me say right out, homosexuality, along with fornication and adultery, is an activity of choice, not a class of individuals. While man is born with a propensity to sin, he is not the bearer of any specific sin per se. Sin is a choice man makes, not an accident of nature.

If we are to accept the present secular thinking that certain sins, such as homosexuality, are an accident of nature rather than a deliberate choice, it makes God out as the originator and propagator of sin. God forbid!

If Christians follow the same line in redefining sin, where does it stop? If you change sin, you must change the Savior! Change sin and you must change the Bible! Change sin and you must change God!

As evangelicals, we cannot equivocate on the issue of sin. Either the Bible is right and God true, or man is right and God wrong. There is no middle ground.