If evil, are they so by nature, or by will? But by nature souls can in no way be evil. Whence do we teach this. From the above definitions of will and sin. For to speak of souls, and that they are evil, and that they do not sin, is full of madness; but to say that they sin without will, is great craziness, and to hold any one guilty of sin for not doing what he could not do, belongs to the height of iniquity and insanity. Wherefore whatever these souls do, if they do it by nature not by will, that is, if they are wanting in a movement of mind free both for doing and not doing, if finally no power of abstaining from their work is conceded to them; we cannot hold that the sin is theirs. But all confess both that evil souls are justly, and souls that have not sinned are unjustly condemned; therefore they confess that those souls are evil that sin. But these, as reason teaches, do not sin.
I am having difficulty understanding what is being said I think I have an Idea but I trully am not good at reading comprehension. what is your take.
The quote is from Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the DonatistsChapter 12.From the Definitions Given of Sin and Will, He Overthrows the Entire Heresy of the Manichæans. Likewise from the Just Condemnation of Evil Souls It Follows that They are Evil Not by Nature But by Will. That Souls are Good By Nature, to Which the Pardon of Sins is Grantedhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.vi.xiii.html
If evil, are they so by nature, or by will? But by nature souls can in no way be evil. Whence do we teach this. From the above definitions of will and sin. For to speak of souls, and that they are evil, and that they do not sin, is full of madness; but to say that they sin without will, is great craziness, and to hold any one guilty of sin for not doing what he could not do, belongs to the height of iniquity and insanity. Wherefore whatever these souls do, if they do it by nature not by will, that is, if they are wanting in a movement of mind free both for doing and not doing, if finally no power of abstaining from their work is conceded to them; we cannot hold that the sin is theirs. But all confess both that evil souls are justly, and souls that have not sinned are unjustly condemned; therefore they confess that those souls are evil that sin. But these, as reason teaches, do not sin. Augustine.
If man is evil, is it because it is his nature to be so, or is it because he has chosen to be so? That is the question.If it is totally by nature, that is if man has no choice in the matter, then how could they be held accountable for that sin? It would be like a dog being condemned for doing what dog's do. Augustine is, I think, arguing that man's will enters into the equation and that he has chosen to sin. I have not read the rest of what he is saying here, but in a nutshell that is the main idea of the paragraph you posted.
_________________Travis
armkelly: I have listened to others besides Nee that argue that man does not have a "sin nature". One was a man named Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries) here in the states. He has a pretty compelling teaching on the subject.I think the idea behind those who say that man does not have a sin nature is the same as stated by Augustine in this passage of his writing. The nature of a thing is that which gives the thing it identity and that over which the thing has no control. For example, dogs do dog things and have dog behaviors because they are dogs. They cannot act as cats because they are, by nature, dogs. By that reasoning, a man with a sin nature could never become anything other than a sinner and would be reprobate. I have found that nowhere in scripture is the sin nature identified. We were by nature the children of wrath, but that means that according to the natural state of our sinful lives we were destined for wrath, and not that we have a sin nature. It is true that we are born in sin, but those who teach against a sin nature would not equate that with our nature, but rather with our eternal relationship to God prior to regeneration.Interesting quote.
I think the idea behind those who say that man does not have a sin nature is the same as stated by Augustine in this passage of his writing. The nature of a thing is that which gives the thing it identity and that over which the thing has no control. For example, dogs do dog things and have dog behaviours because they are dogs. They cannot act as cats because they are, by nature, dogs. By that reasoning, a man with a sin nature could never become anything other than a sinner and would be reprobate. tanyweb.
Very well put Amrkelly. Your post deserves a slow, contemplative reading. There is much substance to ruminate upon. Thank you for taking the time to share it with us.Paul
_________________Paul Frederick West
lately i seem to struck with awa ,and even tremble reading your writings andrew ,,,bless you brother did agustine have this veiw spokon of here towards the end of his life,,,i was under the impresion this was his earlyer view
the teaching of spirit soul and body is one i see very plainly in scipture. i guess the concept of sin nature is one i still wrestle with a bit. all men are born in sin. all men are bound for hell barring repentance and regeneration. but if a mans nature is that which cannot decide to change then is he born with a sin nature or is he born lost, spiritually dead to god. i guess the discussion is somewhat dependent on the definition one scribes to the term nature. of the fact that all men are born in sin and must be born again there really can be no debate. the universalist creates god in his own image so as to be ok with doing as he pleases with no consequence. of some thing the word is explicitly plain. sorry for the topping mistakes. replying from my new phone.