Why do we inherit sin?

[Pilgrim and stranger]

I haven't studied this subject for quite some time, but isn't Adam considered by many to be the 'federal' (or representative) head of our race, and that as a result of his sin, we too are counted sinners, his sin being imputed to us ..

 

[holyrokker]

It's refered to as The Federal Headship - It is NOT a universally recognized theory in the church.

 

[holyrokker]

It's refered to The Federal Headship - It is NOT a universally recognized theory in the church.

 

[Misty Minister]

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin. (Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.)

Calvin, Michael Servetus, Luther, or God which should I believe?

 

[holyrokker]

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin. (Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.)

Those verses are lifted out of context. They do not teach an inherited sin nature.

 

[armothe]

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin. (Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.)

Did it ever occur to anybody that David says this because he was born as a result of an adulterous relationship?

-A

 

[holyrokker]

Did it ever occur to anybody that David says this because he was born as a result of an adulterous relationship?

-A

Yes, it has

http://www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/ps51_5.htm

 

[charis theou]

We each inheret a sin nature, that is, the ability to sin and the fact that we will choose to sin. If sin were inherent within the flesh, then Christ Himself would have been a sinner, so we must be careful when talking about "original sin". It is not the physical nature of man to sin but simply what man predisposed to do because it is within our nature to do so.

 

[james1]

The doctrine taught is that Adam and Eve were PERFECT (after all, could God create something that was NOT perfect? Were they not created in God's OWN IMAGE)?

Well, they were "perfect" in the same way that Satan (a liar and a murderer from the very beginning) was perfect -- PERFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH GOD CREATED THEM.

Adam and Eve ALREADY had lust and disobedience in their hearts BEFORE the serpent approached them. Eve LUSTED BEFORE she ever actually ate of the fruit.

Now then let's read Rom. 5:12 together:

"Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."


​

​

Now then, WHERE does that verse say that Adam's "sin was passed on to all in the world?" Was "sin" passed on? NO! "DEATH" was passed on.


Are we condemned because of "ADAM'S SIN?" NO! "...for that ALL have sinned." All have sinned their OWN individual sins, they are not condemned because of Adam's sin, but they did receive "death" from Adam in that "mortality" WAS passed on to the whole human race, because Adam did NOT partake of the "TREE OF LIFE," but rather sinned which brought the penalty God promised of "death."

A better translation helps our understanding:

​

"Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind on which all sinned..." (Concordant Literal New Testament).


​

​

Rom. 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."


They were made sinners by VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY RECEIVED ADAM'S MORTALITY [DEATH] NOT HIS SIN. We sin because we are mortal [dying]. We have NO SPIRITUAL STRENGTH to combat our carnal, sinning, DYING, FLESH. Hence all sin because THEY ARE MORTAL. Adam sinned because HE WAS MORTAL. "It is appointed unto ALL men once to die"

But there are TWO DEATHS -- spiritual and physical. Jesus Christ said: "Let the DEAD bury the DEAD." Two kinds of "dead" in ONE VERSE. The SPIRITUALLY DEAD, who bury the PHYSICALLY DEAD!

Hope that helps your understanding a little better. One more point: Any human being from any generation in the history of the human race, if put in the garden under the same conditions as Adam, would have ALSO SINNED THE SAME WAY. Adam sinned not because he could have chosen NOT TO SIN, but because he was made too spiritually weak to avoid or conquer sin. God MADE Adam subject to VANITY and CORRUPTION (and "not willingly"). See Romans 8:18-23).


​

 

[St. Worm2]

Hey James, there's a bunch of stuff in your post I'd like to discuss, but for now, I'd rather just point out what is, for me at least, the 'big' issue. If God made Adam (and thus all of mankind) in such a fashion that he was "too spiritually weak to avoid or conquer sin", and "subject to VANITY and CORRUPTION", then how could God condemn him for sinning? Likewise, if God, in essence, forced Adam to sin (as you seem to be saying), then where does the blame for Adam's sin lie? Certainly not with Adam, yes?

This is at least one reason why I've come to believe in what's called the "Federal Headship" view (as Holyroker so kindly pointed out above) of the Fall, where our race's Federal Head, Adam, had true liberty to make a REAL choice to obey or disobey God. And this view of the Fall also allows for a literal reading of verses like Romans 5:12 that says "...through one man sin entered into the world..." or Romans 5:19 that says "...through the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners...". Your view seems to make God out to be the One by Whom sin entered the world and the many were made sinners!!

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, so I think I'd better stop here.

Post Tenebras Lux,
David

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Perhaps this was said was overlooked by me in earlier posts, but the death suffered by Adam because of sin was both physical and spiritual death. Everything not only begins to die and is corrupted because of sin, but Adam (and because of his sin, all his offspring) is now separated from God.

We inherit both deaths from Adam. Because of Adam's sin none of us are born worthy of assumption into Heaven body and soul. So we are all born in a state that separates from God and requires the Grace made possible by Jesus to redeem us. Only Jesus and Mary are born without this corruption from Adam.

 

[St. Worm2]

Perhaps this was said was overlooked by me in earlier posts, but the death suffered by Adam because of sin was both physical and spiritual death. Everything not only begins to die and is corrupted because of sin, but Adam (and because of his sin, all his offspring) is now separated from God.

We inherit a both deaths from Adam. Because of Adam's sin none of us are born worthy of assumption into Heaven body and soul. So we are all born in a state that separates from God and requires the Grace made possible by Jesus to redeem us. Only Jesus and Mary are born without this corruption from Adam.

Hey Dr. B, Jesus didn't have a biological father, but how do you figure Mary escaped the effects of the Fall?

Yours and His,
David

 

[DrBubbaLove]

David,

Jesus, while not having a human Father, was still 100% human (while also 100% Divine). To be able to redeem mankind, Jesus had to be 100% man. We believe that having no human father, He got all of His Humanity from Mary. Because we are all descended from Adam, all humans are born separated from God. Jesus was born, lived and died sinless, so He could not have been born in a state separated from God.

To receive all his humanity from Mary without also being born separated from God, then either Mary did not have that state of separation from God when Jesus was conceived in her womb or God had to create a barrier to prevent Him from getting that fallen state from Mary and thereby inheriting that separation from God. We believe the former, that Grace from God was applied before Mary was born, that she was conceived Holy by God's Grace and remained ‘Full of Grace” her entire life.

The other position has a problem. If Mary was not Holy when Jesus was conceived and God just prevented Jesus from getting that fallen state of Her humanity, then would less than what His Mother was, less than 100% human. To be his Mother and for Him to be a Mother's Son, she had to contribute all that a Mother would, giving all that she was to His becoming a man. Getting all from Mary is what makes Him 100% human. All things are possible with God, but if Jesus had been conceived immaculately then He would be something less than 100% human as He would not be getting everything that the only human involved in His Birth had to give. So He had to get all that Mary was to be fully Man. And again He had to be fully a Man to be able to redeem mankind.

So it makes sense what the Angel said to her, that she was "Full of Grace". To be in that state, one would be completely Holy. Being FULL of something implies no room for the opposite or lack of Grace. She could therefore at that moment the Angel spoke not have been in any other state than completely Holy, free from sin, including the inherited corruption of our being from Adam. The Angels choice of words indicates this state was something she already had, as in before the Angel came and before she said yes.


So the question then becomes how did she get that way. The tradition and teaching of the early Fathers and now a matter of faith for us, is that she was born that way. Suppose, again all things are possible, that He could have made her that way prior to the Angels arrival, but then one would wonder why no one bothered to mention it or heard her talking about something that had to have been a life changing event for her. So no matter how you look it, that scenario is actually more difficult to believe. For me it is enough that the Church says it is so, that she was born that way.

 

[St. Worm2]

Hey, Dr. B., sorry for taking so long to get back to you, but I've had little time to post recently and was tied up on another thread whenever the time presented itself to me it seemed. I am, in fact, pressured right now time-wise, so rather than trying to go over this bit by bit, I'll just ask you a couple of questions.

First, if what you propose was, indeed, done for Mary, why not for everyone else? Why would God leave the world 'fallen' and separated from Him if it wasn't necessary to do so?

Second, if Jesus would be less than 100% human if immaculately conceived in the womb of a sinner, then what about Mary? Her immaculate conception would render the same problem to her, and, ultimately then, to her Son (since "all" that Mary would have to pass on to Him 'humanity-wise' then would be less than He needed)? Or are you saying that Mary's line was sinless all the way back to Adam?

I've got to go, so I'll stop there. I certainly hope we can talk later about things like "Full of Grace", the imputation of Adam's sin, the ECF's, etc., but those two questions will have to do for now.

Yours and His,
David

 

[walkingfeet]

Maybe their is a sin gene and it's passed down from the man not the woman,and thats the way Jesus was born without sin.It's not impossible our sex is determined
from the male right?

 

[holyrokker]

Maybe their is a sin gene and it's passed down from the man not the woman,and thats the way Jesus was born without sin.It's not impossible our sex is determined
from the male right?

If that's the case, then Jesus died in vain. Why would He need to die for a physical problem? All He would need to do is heal every man physically.

Sin isn't a physical, or genetic problem. It's a problem of will.

The real question is whether or not we truly have free-will in regards to sin.

 

[St. Worm2]

If that's the case, then Jesus died in vain. Why would He need to die for a physical problem? All He would need to do is heal every man physically.

Sin isn't a physical, or genetic problem. It's a problem of will.

The real question is whether or not we truly have free-will in regards to sin.

Ephesians 2:2-3 seems clear enough when it calls us "sons of disobedience" and then tells us that we "were by nature (IOW, born), children of wrath, even as the rest". Sin is a problem of the will to be sure, but that only because our wills are incapable of completely resisting our nature! We sin BECAUSE we are sinners, not the other way around.

So the real question is, "how did we get this way"!! If God made Adam with a sin nature (and so, through him genetically, the rest of humanity as well), how can we held accountable for sinning? Likewise, if the cause was not a result of the Fall, we are left in the same boat (or, rather, God is). IOW, if Adam is not the cause of humanity's universally depraved nature, then God must be (in that He would have had to MAKE us this way), thus making Him, the Author of sin.

Post Tenebras Lux,
David

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First, if what you propose was, indeed, done for Mary, why not for everyone else? Why would God leave the world 'fallen' and separated from Him if it wasn't necessary to do so?

I believe He did do that for "everyone" with Adam. Like Mary, Adam was free to choose sin and he did. Suppose God could have done a "do over" for all mankind, but that is not fair justice for an infinite offense. For God to then redeem us all at birth would mean there was no justice/punishment to pay for Adam's sin.
That He gave Mary the Grace to be born that way we believe is what made it possible for Jesus to fully inherit from her all that she was, making Him 100% human, rather than requiring God to block the stain of sin from Mary from being passed to Jesus. There is a sense that the stain of sin is a part of what we are and does get passed on. It would be unseemly for Jesus to get that from Mary.

Second, if Jesus would be less than 100% human if immaculately conceived in the womb of a sinner, then what about Mary? Her immaculate conception would render the same problem to her, and, ultimately then, to her Son (since "all" that Mary would have to pass on to Him 'humanity-wise' then would be less than He needed)? Or are you saying that Mary's line was sinless all the way back to Adam?

No just Mary born sinless or rather without the stain of Adam's sin. She was not "separated" from God from birth. We believe that is why the Angel could say to her, before she was pregnant, that God was with her, that she was blessed among women and had found favor with God.

Good question though. Never thought of anyone questioning Mary's humanity since we know who both her parents were. People have questioned Jesus’ humanity repeatedly over the last 2000 years and even today some do. If God blocked the stain of sin from Mary in her mother's womb, the fact that people saw she had two parents, she lived and apparently "fall asleep" probably removed any doubt that one could have about her humanity. The point with Jesus I think is that we know He is Divine, so what gave Him his humanity had to be Mary. To see our Savior as a man, one would have to believe that He got all Mary had to give, since she was the only human involved with His birth. Can see it being a little week there, but not without merit.

Given what the Angel said about Her before she was pregnant, she had to have been Holy at that moment. So the only question becomes when did she get that way. Given other analogies in the Bible of holy vessels, old wine skin vs new ...etc, it makes sense to me that she was prepared from the womb by God for this purpose, to say Yes to Jesus. She was free to choose, but prepared by God for the choice. That is our belief anyway.

Think it would be hard for anyone to deny she was already Holy when the Angel spoke. She is the only other human besides Jesus that gets so much said about her status with God. And if she was not that way when she was born, but rather unholy (not from actual sin, just separated from God like Adam became because of his sin) unholy like the rest of us are at birth then it seems very odd that no one would record any mention of her relating how she got that way. Something had to have happened to her to be made Holy by God before the Angel visited her and you would think it would be worth noting what that was. Instead we just have in the Bible an Angel saying she was Holy before she was pregnant. For us the rest just comes from our traditions (people said it was so) and reasoning. We have a lot of them about Mary. If something miraculous had earlier occurred to her to make her Holy, we would have heard about that.




edited added this morning:
Your question got me to thinking. Woke with another thought about the difference between Mary having this done to her and Jesus. In Mary's case it would be supernatural intervention that makes it possible for her to be born without "inheriting sin", she still has only two parents, both human, so we can imagine no doubt about her being human. Jesus on the other hand has only one human parent. Yes the same supernatural power could have been applied to prevent His "inheriting" a fallen nature, but then He owes that part of Himself, that part of His Humanity to His Divine Father and not Mary. His humanity would be more than what Mary (actually more Human since we are made for that purpose) gave Him. He would not get the lack of harmony of fallen Man, but a complete harmony in His nature from God. It would be like creating a New Man by starting over rather than preparing Mary to make it possible. Just a thought.

 

[holyrokker]

Ephesians 2:2-3 seems clear enough when it calls us "sons of disobedience" and then tells us that we "were by nature (IOW, born), children of wrath, even as the rest". Sin is a problem of the will to be sure, but that only because our wills are incapable of completely resisting our nature! We sin BECAUSE we are sinners, not the other way around.

So the real question is, "how did we get this way"!! If God made Adam with a sin nature (and so, through him genetically, the rest of humanity as well), how can we held accountable for sinning? Likewise, if the cause was not a result of the Fall, we are left in the same boat (or, rather, God is). IOW, if Adam is not the cause of humanity's universally depraved nature, then God must be (in that He would have had to MAKE us this way), thus making Him, the Author of sin.

Post Tenebras Lux,
David

According to Strong's Lexicon the Greek word translated here "nature" can refer to both nature by birth or "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"
So, it doesn't have to mean that humanity is born "by nature children of wrath" - it can also mean that we become the objects of wrath.

It's also the same word used in Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." And in Romans 2:14 " Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law..."

The problem is that "all have sinned". The problem isn't that all have been born sinners by nature.

I contend that we are sinners because we sin, not the other way around.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Agree with Holy to a point. We believe that one result of the Fall was a unbalance or dis-harmony in the union of our body and spirit. It is that lack of harmony which gives us a tendency to sin, and which we inherit due to Adam's sin. So we sin because we are human and all humans are sinners.

It was that imbalance which allowed other thoughts to enter Adam and Eve's mind regarding thier nakedness and it disturbed them so much, they hid and clothed themselves.