Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? edition by Jesse Morrell Religion Spirituality eBooks
Download As PDF : Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? edition by Jesse Morrell Religion Spirituality eBooks 
Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature by Jesse Morrell is a thorough examination and refutation to one of the oldest theological excuses for sin – a sinful nature. With an abundance of scripture, keen logic, and an appeal to Christian teachers throughout history, this book not only shows that men are not born with a sinful nature but that sin is actually contrary to the nature God gave us.
Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? edition by Jesse Morrell Religion Spirituality eBooks
Jessee does an outstanding job of tackling and answering questions on a very misunderstood part of mans existence.Product details
|
Tags : Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? - Kindle edition by Jesse Morrell. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?.,ebook,Jesse Morrell,Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature?,RELIGION Christian Theology General
People also read other books :
- How to Crochet Blanket Patterns 10 Round Afghans edition by Prime Publishing Crafts Hobbies Home eBooks
- Tiny Pieces of Skull Or a Lesson in Manners edition by Roz Kaveney Literature Fiction eBooks
- A Dowry for the Sultan A tale of the siege of Manzikert 1054 edition by Lance Collins Jill Collins Literature Fiction eBooks
- Williams Dog Rescue 2013 Calendar Cosette Riggs 9781480189904 Books
- A Stranger Revenge A Stranger Desire Book 2 edition by Shaelyn Jackson Literature Fiction eBooks
Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? edition by Jesse Morrell Religion Spirituality eBooks Reviews
Unenlightened Legalism
A Review of Jesse Morrelll’s “Does Man Inherit a Sinful Nature?”
Geoff Robinson, Ph.D
Jesse Morrell is an evangelist, not a theologian. While the work of evangelism is, of course, vital, from a Christian perspective, this book on the important doctrine of original sin does reflect the fact that Morrell has not received the benefits of a formal theological education. Of course, this observation need not, in principle, invalidate the message of the book, but it does make the author’s point somewhat less plausible than might otherwise have been the case.
Before considering the book’s thesis, let me briefly outline some of the weaknesses of the book.
a) Perhaps one of the most glaring is the author’s almost exclusive appreciation for the work of 19th C theologians (Charles Finney, Albert Barnes, Moses Stuart, etc). Morrell cites these works extensively, but rarely cites more modern evangelical scholars. The appeal to 19th C authors to substantiate a given point lends an air of irrelevance of the discussion for the modern writer.
b) While there are a lot of quotations from other authors, there is relatively little extended interaction with an opposing viewpoint or perspective. Morrell is more interested in making his point, reinforcing it with a quote and then moving on. I would have liked to have seen more interaction with (modern) opposing views or interpretations. Similarly, the format of the references of works cited in the footnotes are not consistent, and sometimes even non-existent. Whilst not fatal, this characteristic tends to detract from the seriousness with which the work should be taken.
c) There is relatively little detailed exegesis of controversial verses or passages. Here Morrell’s lack of formal theological education becomes most apparent. While the meaning of a word is sometimes explained, there is little beyond this in the way of Scripture focused analysis at the grammatical, hermeneutical, or textual level. Too much reliance is made upon the supposed self-evident nature of the meaning of a passage.
d) The use of the King James Bible throughout when biblical texts are quoted again lends an air of distance and irrelevance to the study. Not many Christians, presumably the primary intended audience, are familiar with 17th C English these days!
e) I found the structure of the book unhelpful. The Table of Contents lists a series of heading which are all relevant to the subject matter, but which appear (to me at least) disconnected. This may explain why I felt there was quite a lot of repetition in the book. A better, clearer, structure would help the author’s message to be understood and retained. (Perhaps major subject headings each with 3 or 4 sub-headings would be a more helpful structure).
These criticisms are somewhat trivial and certainly not fatal to the basic message of the book. Does Man Inherit a Sinful Nature? The resounding answer consistently sustained throughout the book is No.
The book begins with a clarification of what is meant by “a sinful nature”. The Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of sin residing in a person’s constitutional makeup from birth onwards causing the person to therefore be guilty before God is rejected. So is the semi-Pelagian view that sees human nature, while not sinful itself (as in Augustinianism) nevertheless manifests itself as an inclination to sin. Rather, human nature, is strictly morally neutral, but can be subject to sin through repeated choices made by the person (will) to sin. A person’s sinning can be second nature, and in this sense part of the person’s makeup. While there may be important insights here, more explanation as to why the other two views are incorrect (and why so many Christians hold them), and why the third view is the only legitimate understanding would have been helpful. (Though, in fairness, the author’s thesis, which is argued throughout the book, is only consistent with the 3rd view).
After establishing that God is the designer and creator of our nature (as well as our bodies) and that therefore our nature is, contra Augustinianism, inherently good, the author draws out the implications of this understanding of human nature. What follows is an anthropology that stands in stark contrast to the Augustinian/Calvinistic anthropology.
God designed us for holiness, and so sinning is “actually contrary to nature” (p.10). Conscience is the faculty that monitors whether we are in fact living according to our God-given nature. “God designed our constitution or nature with a conscience so that we have the natural tendency, a constitutional bent, or a compositional influence to obey the moral law of God and live in the way of virtue” (p.13). This anthropology stands in stark contrast to the traditional Augustinian view of human nature which asserts that man inherited from Adam not only the guilt of that first sin, but also a corrupt nature that is free only to sin and that all a sinner’s actions cannot be anything but sinful.
Next, Morrell highlights the reality of a will that is free to either obey or disobey God’s moral law (either revealed – the 10 commandments, or innate – natural law). This, unlike the moral determinism associated with Calvinism, highlights both the justifiability of God’s judgment upon a person’s choosing to sin, and underscores the fact that sin is volitional, no one is compelled to sin (pp19-21).
The nature of sin is that it is an action chosen that is in fact contrary to our God-given nature. The consequence is that we feel guilty for violating God’s moral law, and our conscience alerts us to the fact that we have acted in a way that is contrary to God’s intend and design for us. “…we naturally feel the pains of conscience when we do what is wrong and we naturally have peace of mind when we do what is right. This has been the universal phenomenon of all moral beings that have chosen either right or wrong” (p.23). Romans 7 is understood to refer to Paul’s pre-conversion experience, and is appealed to by Morrell to show “...what happens when an unconverted sinner’s mind encounters the law of God and is convicted by it” (p26). The conscience however, can be almost silenced through continual ignoring of its claims and demands (to cease violating God’s law). Again, this is a man induced state of affairs, not a natural or normal, God-intended or God-designed state of affairs (p.30).
I found this entire line of thought – that we are designed for good, that our natures are naturally meant to function in accordance with God’s laws – quite helpful and has the ring of truth to it.
The next section in the book is titled “Virtue and Vice Relates to Moral Choices and Not Natural Constitution” and is self-explanatory (pp.31-33). The element of repetition may be discerned here.
The reality and guilt of men’s sins is not denied by Morrell despite his claim that “mankind has a natural or constitutional influence towards virtue and against sin” (p.33). The guilt is underscored in fact because, despite a God-designed bias towards virtue, men choose to sin anyway. Unlike the Augustinian doctrine of original sin which locates the origin or source of human sinning in Adam’s first sin, Morrell insists the Bible indicates the origin of sin actually resides with the individual and his or hers decision to violate God’s will. “Sin is something that each individual conceives in their own heart (Acts 54). It is something that men originate with their own wills (Ps 714; 583; Matt 1235,etc) (p37).
The consequence is that sinners separate themselves from God – “men are dead in their own sins, not spiritually dead for the single sin of Adam” (p.43).
Closely tied with the doctrine of original sin (the consequences upon Adam’s posterity for Adam’s sin) is the question of the spiritual standing of infants. Since Morrell denies that anyone is ever in a state of guilt and condemnation for the sin of Adam, but rather, to the contrary, everyone stands guilty before God for their own personal sins, then the status of children who are too young to knowingly choose to violate God’s moral law is raised. Morrell’s solution is to hold children accountable for their personal sin only when they reach an age of accountability. (The solution for much of Christian history, for those holding to original sin, has been infant baptism).
In the chapter titled Lawful vs. Unlawful Gratification of our God Given Nature, Morrell speaks of our ‘higher nature’ and our ‘lower nature’. It would have been helpful if he had worked with biblical terms, but it seems as though by lower nature the author means our physical body and its needs & desires (the flesh), and our higher nature refers to our will and intellect. The former is morally neutral but can become an instrument of sin when used in a way not intended by God and not subject to a person’s higher nature. “A sinner chooses to ignore his conscience, to live contrary to his higher nature, and to live supremely for his own self-gratification. This is an abuse and misuse of his nature” (p.55). This sort of language seems to cohere with Romans 612-14 “12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” Whilst the Romans passage is, of course, addressed to Christians, the same basic dynamic would appear to hold for all persons as persons. The difference is that the Christian has resources (the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit) not available to the unbeliever.
When discussing the way Adam’s sin is supposedly transmitted to his posterity (as in the Augustinian anthropology), the view of Seminal Identity whereby the sin-nature is passed on through sexual intercourse is highly problematic. If it were the case that Adam’s posterity inherited Adam’s sin, then why would not all Noah’s posterity inherit Noah’s relative righteousness? Seminal Identity “would also mean that we participated in the righteousness of Noah and are under God’s favor on account of that, since we all descended from Noah and were supposedly in his loins when he obeyed God” (p.87). Furthermore, the notion that Adam’s posterity would be held accountable for Adam’s sin would be a contradiction of the principle stated in Ezekiel 1820 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
While God is the author of our nature, he is not the author of our sinning. Contrary to the doctrine of original sin which teaches that all are born as sinners and suffering the guilt of Adam’s sin, the Bible indicates that we are the result of God’s marvelous and wonderful good creation Ps 13913,14 “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.” (p.113).
Our moral character is not hereditary (pp.121-126). A person’s character is the result of moral choices made. Bad character follows from bad choices which in turn may be because of others’ leading, influence or example. Many kings of Israel “made Israel to sin” – for example King Jeroboam in 1Kings 1416.
Because our moral character is not hereditary then neither is our eternal destiny, whether that be for salvation following repentance and belief in the gospel or for damnation for refusing to repent and believe the gospel (pp.127-132).
Throughout the book Morrell addresses various aspects of the key passage used to justify a doctrine of original sin, Rom512-19. At the end of his book the author provides a very helpful explanation of several texts used to justify original sin and shows in each case that an alternate way of understanding these passages may be plausibly held (pp. 159-191).
Of course, not everyone will be persuaded by the arguments in this book. It really takes a paradigm shift to appreciate the thrust of Morrell’s perspective, and paradigm shifts are often resisted by those familiar with and committed to an existing paradigm with which they are comfortable. But for those with ears to hear, Morrell has done the church a service in providing an alternative perspective to a very contentious doctrine.
Jessee does an outstanding job of tackling and answering questions on a very misunderstood part of mans existence.
0 Response to "[IE4]⇒ Read Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? edition by Jesse Morrell Religion Spirituality eBooks"
Post a Comment