As with many things, the question “Is Original Sin biblical?” depends on how you define “original sin”. There isn’t a universally agreed upon definition, which can muddy the waters. Therefore we’ll start by looking at the three different understandings of original sin. Then we’ll examine each of those understandings in the light of scripture.
Without further ado, we’ll begin.
Defining original sin
“Original sin” refers to the effect that Adam’s “original sin” in the Garden of Eden had upon his descendants. There are three basic understandings of this, and the Christian apologetics website gotquestions.org has a good definition of them. However, while the definitions are correct, the labels to the definitions aren’t necessarily correct.
There are plenty of non-Armenians who believe what they call the Armenian view, and many non-Calvinists who believe what they call the Calvinist view. A slightly shortened version of those definitions is below for an overview.
Pelagianism: This view says that Adam’s sin had no effect upon the souls of his descendants other than that he provided a sinful example. Adam’s example has influenced those who followed him to also sin. But, according to this view, man has the ability to stop sinning if he simply chooses to.
Arminianism: Arminians believe Adam’s original sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a corrupt, sinful nature, which causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own
Calvinism: The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment. … Not only was Adam found guilty because he sinned, but his sin was imputed to us, making us guilty and deserving of his punishment (death) as well.
(Source.)
To sum up, the three basic ideas are this:
- Adam’s sin had no effect on us
- Adam’s sin made us inclined to sin by nature
- Adam’s sin made us inclined to sin by nature, and made us guilty of Adam’s sin from the instant of conception
Now, most people have the Calvinist understanding in mind when they mention “original sin”. Not always, but usually. It’s usually a good idea to clarify what the other person means because I’ve heard the phrase “original sin” to refer to both of the non-Pelagian understandings.
We’ll examine each idea in turn.
The Pelagian understanding of Original Sin
We won’t spend a long time here. Pelagianism is a heresy that has been around since Pelagius (355-420AD). Pelagius held that man could become sinless on his own without God’s grace, as the quote below indicates:
Pelagianism: This view says that Adam’s sin had no effect upon the souls of his descendants other than that he provided a sinful example. Adam’s example has influenced those who followed him to also sin. But, according to this view, man has the ability to stop sinning if he simply chooses to.
This article could become quite long while disproving Pelagianism, but I don’t think that’s necessary. I’m merely going to quote one verse to disprove it and thereafter you can do your own research. It’s widely regarded as heresy, and many others have done a fine job of disproving it.
Romans 5:19
For just as the many were made sinners through the disobedience of one man, so also the many will be made righteous through the obedience of One man.
The rest of Romans 5 and much of the New Testament disproves Pelagianism, so we’ll move on from here.
The “Calvinist” understanding of Original Sin
This view arguably generates the most controversy.
Again, we’ll look at the definition, but this time we’ll look at the full version. It’s important to remember that this view did not originate with John Calvin, despite it usually being associated with him. it’s also important to note that many non-Calvinists also hold to this understanding.
Calvinism: The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment. Being conceived with original sin upon us (Psalm 51:5) results in our inheriting a sin nature so wicked that Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as “deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” Not only was Adam found guilty because he sinned, but his sin was imputed to us, making us guilty and deserving of his punishment (death) as well (Romans 5:12, 19). There are two views as to why Adam’s sin should be imputed to us. The first view states that the human race was within Adam in seed form; thus, when Adam sinned, we sinned in him. This is similar to the biblical teaching that Levi (a descendant of Abraham) paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:4–9), even though Levi was not born until hundreds of years later. The other main view is that Adam served as our representative, and so, when he sinned, we were found guilty as well.
Calvin taught that every single person was guilty from the moment of conception. So the moment that the sperm meets the egg, that person is already guilty. He taught that there was no point at which man is not guilty of sin. Calvin argued that a baby was guilty from the very moment of conception; not guilty of his own sin, but guilty of Adam’s sin.
Verses supporting the Calvinist position
The primary text that Calvin and others use to support their view of original sin is Psalm 51:5.
Psalm 51:1-7
For the choir director. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.
1 Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness;
According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
And cleanse me from my sin.3 For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.4 Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.6 Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.7 Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
At first glance, this does indeed seem to be absolute proof that the Calvinist understanding of original sin is correct… but only at first glance. There’s an important thing that’s often overlooked and two relevant verses that are rarely discussed.
The important thing:
Poetry is hyperbolic by nature.
I have said before that it’s unwise to draw theology from the Psalms because of this, and this a perfect example. Now, the first rarely discussed verse dovetails nicely into the first point by proving it, and it also adds context to Psalm 51:5.
Job 31:16-18
16 “If I have kept the poor from their desire,
Or caused the eyes of the widow to fail,17 Or eaten my morsel by myself,
So that the fatherless could not eat of it18 (But from my youth I reared him as a father,
And from my mother’s womb I guided the widow);
Does anyone really think that Job was guiding widows while he was still in his mother’s womb? I mean, really? Now, this isn’t a problem if you understand that poetry is hyperbolic by nature. The Bible’s poetic books are full of imagery that would be very strange if you took them literally.
For example, here’s a drawing of what the woman in Song of Solomon would look like if you took the description literally:
Yeah, it’s not a good idea to understand biblical poetry literally, and this is also the case with Psalm 51:5, which Job 31:18 demonstrates quite well.
Remember that David wrote Psalm 51 right after he was confronted about his sin with Bathsheba. His son was either dying or had just died, and he was likely feeling pretty awful and his poetry indicates this. Remember too that Uriah was one of David’s “mighty men” who’d been with him since before he was king of Israel. (1 Chronicles 11:41) He probably writes about being conceived in sin because he felt so sinful.
But remember that it’s still poetry, which is hyperbolic by nature.
If David really was guilty from his mother’s womb, then Job was also leading widows from his mother womb. (If you’re going to be literal, you should at least be consistent.) Just to make the parallelism clear, here are the two verses side-by-side
Psalm 51:5 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Job 31:18 (But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother’s womb I guided the widow)
So, if you hold that Psalm 51:5 teaches the Calvinist understanding of original sin, then please leave a comment detailing how Job could lead widows while still in his mother’s womb.
Verses which argue against the Calvinist position
The clearest verses refuting this are both in Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 28:11-12 and 15
11 Again the word of the LORD came to me saying,
12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.…
15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
Now, in context there’s clearly some poetic hyperbole in the passage (especially verse 13). However, at the very least one could argue that the poetic hyperbole here is certainly enough to “cancel” the poetic hyperbole in Psalm 51:5, and make it clear that they are both poetic hyperbole.
Fortunately, God does speak about the topic without poetic hyperbole.
In fact, God actually and literally devoted an entire chapter of the Bible to refuting the Calvinist interpretation of original sin. No I’m not kidding; there is an entire chapter about it: Ezekiel 18. You can read the whole chapter online (link opens in new tab) but for the sake of space I’ll just quote the one verse. The entire chapter is in this same vein though, with examples, so I recommend you read it.
Ezekiel 18:20
20 “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.
Let me repeat that for the sake of clarity:
“The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity”
Period.
Full stop.
In my article on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Social Justice, we started by defining biblical justice. It boils down to “each man getting his due, whether good or bad.” Notice, each man doesn’t get someone else’s due; he gets his own due. This idea is all over the Bible, especially the New Testament. Consider all the passages which proclaim that God will “repay each man according to his deeds“. The focus is always on repaying each man for his own sin.
Again, “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity” and “the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
That verse alone seems to be absolute proof that the Calvinist understanding of original sin is wrong.
Paul makes a pretty clear argument about this too.
Romans 5:12
Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all men, because all have sinned.
Why did death spread to all men? Not because of one man’s sin, but instead “because all have sinned.” Notice Paul’s focus. He – like Ezekiel and the rest of the Bible – says our death is the result of our own sin. Not someone else’s sin, our own sin.
We all sin.
That sin brings death, both physically (eventually) and spiritually through separation with God. Our sin did that. My own sin separated me from God just as your own sin separated you from God. Thankfully Jesus went to the cross to deal with this. God’s mercy and grace fixed the problem, and the problem is that we are guilty of our own sin, but not someone else’s.
Again:
Ezekiel 18:20
20 “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.
Paul reaffirms this when he says that all died “because all have sinned.” Our own sin causes our death, not Adam’s sin.
Addendum to this section
There is a time in every person’s life before they have sinned. This is hinted at in Isaiah, and explicitly stated in Romans
Isaiah 7:15-16
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey.
16 For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
This verse in Isaiah is noteworthy because it speaks of Jesus. Therefore, there was a time during the incarnation that Jesus didn’t know to choose evil vs good (and still didn’t sin). Romans is more clear:
Romans 9:10-11
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls
There are other verses which allude to this as well.
Ecclesiastes 7:29
29 “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”
Despite this, God makes it absolutely clear in Romans 3:23 that we always sin.
Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
The Bible is clear that every single person who ever lived sins. Every single one without exception.
Romans 3:9-10
9 What then, are we better? Not at all! For we previously brought an accusation against both Jews and Greeks that all are under sin.
10 Just as it is written: “There is none righteous, not even one.
Thankfully, Jesus dealt with our sin at the cross. 🙂
The “Armenian” understanding of Original Sin
Just as the “Calvinist” idea of original sin predated John Calvin, so also the “Armenian” idea predated James Arminius by quite a long time. While Arminius is the most famous person to promote this understanding, he certainly wasn’t the first. And to be clear, I’m not promoting Arminianism or Calvinism. (I disagree with both on various points)
But sometimes, even Arminianism and Calvinism agree.
(Shocker right?)
As far as I can tell, both Calvinism and Arminianism agree that Arminianism is right on Original Sin; Calvinism just takes it further.
Here’s the Calvinism definition again:
Calvinism: The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment.
The first part in red lines up perfectly with the Arminian understanding:
Arminianism: Arminians believe Adam’s original sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a corrupt, sinful nature, which causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own;
Arminianism says we inherited an inclination to sin from Adam, and Calvinism agrees. In fact, that’s what the “T” in the Calvinism’s “TULIP” acronym stands for: Total Depravity. Calvinism then goes beyond Arminianism by saying that we’re guilty of sin from conception. However, Calvinist doctrine absolutely agrees that we inherited a sin nature from Adam. They agree that because of Adam’s sin, sin comes as naturally to man as breathing does.
Again, Calvinists and Armenians agree that man sins because it comes naturally to us.
In fact, the only people who disagree with this are those who hold to Pelagian ideology. Everyone else agrees. Seriously; literally every other Christian denomination and theological system I’ve ever heard of agrees with this. (If you’ve heard of one that doesn’t include this understanding (besides Pelagianism), leave a comment and I’ll update the article.)
One primary verse used to support this understanding is in Ephesians:
Ephesians 2:3
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
The verse above makes this idea of being children of wrath “by nature” make a lot of sense. We are children of wrath “by nature” because sin comes naturally to us.
While Calvinists and Armenians disagree on almost everything else regarding sin and salvation, they agree on this.
In fact, all Christians seem to agree on this.
This isn’t dissimilar to the Hebrew understanding either.
However, traditional rabbinic understanding of human nature is shaped to a large degree by the presence of two inclinations – the yetzer ha tov (the good inclination) and the yetzer ha ra (the evil inclination).
(Source.)
Depending on the rabbinic source, many ascribe the “good inclination” to the fact that man is made in the image of God. As far as I know, all ascribe the evil inclination to Adam’s sin nature being passed to us, which is consistent with the Christian understanding.
That gives us over 3000 years of continuous theological agreement on this topic.
Now, some may add to this understanding (like saying we’re conceived guilty) but virtually no one denies it. It also appears to be clearly taught from the scriptures too.
Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Therefore, I’d say it’s a safe bet.
Biology supports this understanding too
Have you ever heard of Epigenetics?
“Epi” is a Greek word that means “over” or “on/upon”, and obviously the “genetics” portion of the word is recognizable. Epigenetics is what goes “over” genetics and changes the expression of our DNA. It doesn’t change the DNA itself, but it does change which parts expression themselves; i.e. which genes are used and which are ignored.
Thus, epigenetics can influence a person’s behavior
There’s a fascinating article on the topic of epigenetics that serves to illustrate this well, and it’s more layman friendly than the research papers on the topic. I’ll copy/paste some excerpts below to give you a snapshot.
For those who survived, the harrowing experiences marked many of them for life. They returned to society with impaired health, worse job prospects and shorter life expectancy. But the impact of these hardships did not stop with those who experienced it. It also had an effect on the prisoners’ children and grandchildren, which appeared to be passed down the male line of families.
While their sons and grandsons had not suffered the hardships of the PoW camps – and if anything were well provided for through their childhoods – they suffered higher rates of mortality than the wider population.
…
Costa and her colleagues studied the health records of nearly 4,600 children whose fathers had been PoWs, comparing them to just over 15,300 children of veterans of the war who had not been captured.
The sons of PoWs had an 11% higher mortality rate than the sons of non-PoW veterans. Other factors such as the father’s socioeconomic status and the son’s job and marital status couldn’t account for the higher mortality rate, the researchers found.
Some research was done on mice that confirms this, and it’s fascinating. From the same article:
Controlled experiments in mice have allowed researchers to hone in on this question. A 2013 study found that there was an intergenerational effect of trauma associated with scent. The researchers blew acetophenone – which has the scent of cherry blossom – through the cages of adult male mice, zapping their foot with an electric current at the same time. Over several repetitions, the mice associated the smell of cherry blossom with pain.
Shortly afterwards, these males bred with female mice. When their pups smelled the scent of cherry blossom, they became more jumpy and nervous than pups whose fathers hadn’t been conditioned to fear it. To rule out that the pups were somehow learning about the smell from their parents, they were raised by unrelated mice who had never smelt cherry blossom.
The grandpups of the traumatised males also showed heightened sensitivity to the scent. Neither of the generations showed a greater sensitivity to smells other than cherry blossom, indicating that the inheritance was specific to that scent.
This sensitivity to cherry blossom scent was linked back to epigenetic modifications in their sperm DNA. Chemical markers on their DNA were found on a gene encoding a smell receptor, expressed in the olfactory bulb between the nose and the brain, which is involved in sensing the cherry blossom scent. When the team dissected the pups’ brains they also found there was a greater number of the neurons that detect the cherry blossom scent, compared with control mice.
Basically, we can inherit behaviors from our fathers.
This matches up perfectly with the idea of an “evil inclination” to sin as the Jews thought, and Christians after them affirm. This tendency can even be confirmed through biology!
Talk about science validating the Bible!
Notice too that it’s passed through the male line, not the female line. This lines up well with the Bible assertion that it was Adam’s sin that cause the world to fall, not Eve’s sin.
Romans 5:19
For just as the many were made sinners through the disobedience of one man, so also the many will be made righteous through the obedience of One man.
Romans 5:12
Because of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death spread to all men, because all have sinned.
Even though Eve sinned first, Adam is blamed. Could that be because of epigenetics? Could it be that this “evil inclination” to sin is actually passed on biologically through fathers and not spiritually? Could this evil inclination have been passed down through the ages epigenetically?
That would make a lot of sense to me.
Click here to expand my rambling thoughts on how inherited sin works, or continue to the conclusion below This is my own personal understanding, worth every cent you paid for it. 😉 Free free to adopt it or discard it as you see fit. Man is made in the image of God, as Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9 make abundantly clear. This is still the case, as the use of the present tense in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and the perfect tense in James 3:9 make clear. Man never stopped being made in the image of God. Ever. However, Adam sinned. Once he had sinned, he possessed not only the “image of God”, but also the “evil inclination” as Judaism puts it, which ultimately means “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth“. Two natures are now at war within man, just as Paul explains: Galatians 5:17 For the flesh craves what’s contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what’s contrary to the flesh. For these two stubbornly oppose one another, so you don’t do those things which you desire. We are all Adam’s descendants, and were born in Adam’s image and likeness, as Genesis makes clear: Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Since we are descended from Adam just as Seth was, we are also born in Adam’s image and likeness. This means we are born with the image and likeness of God, because Adam’s image and likeness was the image and likeness of God. But Adam’s nature changed because of sin. He had the two natures warring within him, both of which we inherited. Thus – because we are born in Adam’s image – we inherited both the image and likeness of God, and also the evil inclination. (yetzer ha ra) That evil inclination overpowers our desire to do good, just as Paul says. This guarantees that everyone without exception will fall prey to sin since “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth“. As Romans testifies, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God“. An unbeliever can do good things, but he can never merit salvation because of his sin. He needs Jesus’s work on the cross for that. Nothing else will do. There is no other remedy. None. Salvation comes only comes by God’s goodness and mercy which was displayed by Christ on the cross, and applied to us through faith. Nothing else will do. Nothing. Ever. Fortunately, God already has a plan in place to defeat this sin nature; this “evil inclination” that we inherited from Adam. Paul says the following of our glorified bodies that we’ll one day receive: 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 We inherited a corruptible body with an “evil inclination” from Adam. But when “the corruptible has clothed itself in incorruptibility” I believe that this will be taken away. I believe that on the New Heavens and New Earth, our evil inclination will be “swallowed up in victory” because we’ll have incorruptible bodies. Having incorruptible bodies means that we won’t struggle with our evil inclination any more. What a great and glorious hope that is! When you read Psalms 51:5 in the light of Job 31:18 and Ezekiel 28:15, it becomes clear that it’s merely poetic hyperbole. Ezekiel chapter 18 – and especially verse 20 – makes it 100% perfectly crystal clear that a son cannot be punished for his father’s sins. Ever. Thus, the idea that Adam’s sin made us all guilty and worthy of punishment is patently unbiblical, for a son cannot be punished for his father’s sin. However, the Bible is clear that Adam’s sin did affect us. It left us with an “evil inclination”, and thus God says “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth“. Thus we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and thus all deserved to be punished by God who will “render to each according to his deeds“. Thank God that Christ’s work on the cross solved this for us. 🙂 (And if you accept my position, this evil inclination will be removed in the New Heavens and New Earth with our incorruptible bodies, and thus we’ll struggle against sin no more.)
Conclusion
Hello relative in Christ. The following passage has always been difficult for me to understand, specifically the father/children part at the end.
“Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.””
Exodus 34:6-7
I think you understand the confusion when comparing to Ezekiel 18:20, how one passage supports the idea that everyone will be punished for their own sins and the other seems to support the idea that children are punished for their father’s misdoings (unless I’m mistaken). I am wondering what you think God means here and why He said it.
I understand the confusion, and I might edit the article to address this verse. I think the confusion comes from equating “visiting the iniquity” to “punishing”. They aren’t the same thing. Remember that this is the Moasic Law, and law should be read very carefully (as a lawyer might).
Consider an example of a terrible father who abuses his children. The scars from the father’s iniquity echo down from him into the children. His children and grandchildren (to the third and fourth generation) live with the after-effects of that father’s sin, often displaying a tendency towards their father’s sins. it’s not that God punishes the children for the father’s sin, but that the father’s sin effects (is “visited upon”) his descendants for several generations. In a direct sense this is God doing it because of He created epigenetics (inherited behavior patterns). However, it’s not a punishment any more than it’s God punishing you when you get a burn after touching a hot stove; it’s the natural result, not intentional judgement.
As to why God said it, I’m obviously not sure. My suspicion is that it’s a warning. Some people aren’t able to resist sin simply because they should or because it will hurt them, but some of those people might be able to resist if they know it’ll affect their children. Again though, that’s just a guess.
Very well reasoned exegesis; definitely worth sharing to help other believers understand this topic. It’s been my experience that many in the church are unclear about this. They know “we’re all sinners”, but they don’t have clarity on the “how” and “what” it and it’s actual implications to us individually as believers. I would argue that lack of clarity underpins some of the struggle with questions like “if God is so loving and powerful, why is evil in the world?”
Well argued.
Latter-day Saints (often called Mormons) say “We believe men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.”
That mans LDS people believe an unbaptized baby who does die goes straight to heaven.
Keep up the great work, my brother. Keep letting the Holy Spirit use you to inform a world view based on Scripture and not the ramblings of so-called educated people!
Blessings.
In light of the fact Adam and Eve are merely narrative constructs how do you view sin and more pertinently the supposed need for a saviour?
I would first need to be convinced that Adam and Eve are “merely narrative constructs”.
What are your thoughts on the idea that rather than original sin being inherited from Adam, we inherited spiritual death, which leads to sin? I was trying to wrestle the original sin and imputed sin idea out just recently and this thought occurred to me. My thought is that since Adam was alive spiritually, and then died spiritually when he sinned, his children were then born without the spiritual life they would have inherited had he not sinned. Without this spiritual life we have no way to communicate with God and thus are left to operate in the strength of our souls and bodies, devoid of God’s spirit. It is the spiritual deadness that we inherit, and in time, that leads to sin. A child isn’t born in sin or as a sinner, but their spiritual condition from birth leads directly to it. In that sense, they are “brought forth in iniquity”, not possessing any sin, but susceptible to it, and thus destined for it to occur.
I’ve yet to see a single verse of scripture which says that our sin nature is because we are phyiscal descendents of Adam. It is because of Adam’s actions, his failure, that sin came to life and we died spiritually, but this isn’t connected to physical descent. It is because he was our federal head. As a figure of Christ, he stood in for the race. And when he wanted his eyes opened to good and evil every eye was opened- to the truth that we were evil. We were constituted of earth which is itself a part of nature subjected to futility. They paraded around naked before then but it never occurred to them that they were being immodest, for they had no sense of sin. That is why no sin was imputed. Not because they acted perfectly, but because it wasn’t rebellion against God before any command was given.
I suggest that you re-read the article, and then read Ezekiel chapter 18. Everyone dies because of his own sin. Not someone else’s sin; his own sin. Further, Adam wasn’t evil by nature, he was made in the image of God by nature, and then sin sullied that nature.
Ultimately, we were born in to a dark sinful world and we all at some point committed outr own sin… so it’s our own sin we are guilty of.
Pretty simple concept actually.
This doesn’t make any sense. How can a ‘sinful nature’ be passed on? Biologically? That is not possible. Spiritually? No. God makes the spirit – why would he create a spirit with a twisted nature?
It’s like saying a person was born with only one leg, so they have a natural inclination to fall down. Who asks to be born? We’re just born and someone eventually tells us “your ancestor sinned, so now you have inherited his nature”. Why should the descendants, who had nothing to do with the fall, suffer for Adam and Eve’s sin? Why should all women have great pain in childbirth because Eve sinned? Because all women sin? Why have they sinned? Because they have a sinful nature. Why? Because of Adam and Eve. Thank You, Adam and Eve, for ruining it for the rest of us. He couldn’t even get her pregnant in the garden, and they were naked!. Wouldn’t it be better if they just died then? Why wait till the flood to restart humanity? Noah and his descendants would still have ‘sinful nature’.
How can being made in the image and likeness of God be passed down to children? How is it fair that children are born in the image and likeness of God? That’s such an incredible honor, but they did nothing to deserve it. Isn’t that also unfair? Unfair doesn’t mean unjust, and I spend rather a lot of time explaining this in my article on Biblical justice. (and I mention the fairness aspect because of your comments on the other article)
Now, it would be unjust to punish us for Adam’s sin, which is the point of the article. However, we inherit the nature of our fathers, as Genesis 5:3 makes clear. That nature includes both being made in the image and likeness of God, and also having the taint of sin. There are really only two other options. #1 God kills everyone the moment they commit their first sin, or #2: God never made you or me in the first place. I’m glad God decided to work on redeeming us instead of just killing us or never creating us.
Your writing on this has helped me tremendously in thinking through this doctrine of the church. Thank you for taking the time to think so thoughtfully through this.
I will say, however, that I disagree that Eph. 2 is teaching inherited corruption. At minimum, what would need to show up in the text to teach this view is: 1- a corrupted human nature, 2 – that is hereditaryily passed on (or a weaker attestation would require something like conceived or born”.
But I see this verse using neither 1 nor 2. “Of wrath” does not equate to a corruption, but equates to God’s anger, judgement, and condemnation. This is not describing corruption of nature at all but actually what you were arguing against in this article, namely guilt before God. “We were all by nature, children under God’s [condemnation] which seems to be implying a state of guilt before God. So this verse cannot be teaching the first tenant of Original Sin because it is not here describing a nature of corruption, but rather, at best, a nature of being under guilt.
Now for 2, the Greek word translated as “nature” is pho el which has a range of meaning, as do most Greek words). Indeed one meaning is that of a seed (which WOULD lend itself to being born in this condition). However, this word would also perfectly-legitimately be translated as “of longstanding practice, or habit”. So this passage need not be teaching a “born as” or “conceived as” understanding. In fact, in light of the context of this verse, the better translation would be that of the latter. Paul’s message in this verse is not disconnected from the preceding verses which say “sins in which you once WALKED”, “FOLLOWING the course of this world”, “FOLLOWING the prince of the power of the air”, “we all once LIVED”, “CARRYING OUT the deeds of the flesh”. These are all indications he is thinking of our sin nature in light of our past, conscious choices to sin and not in light of a non-conscious, non decisive act to be a sinner. Also of note is that this verse doesn’t mention a hereditary transfer, so at best it would weakly affirm the first tenant of Original Sin if 1 and 2 were to go through.
For these reasons, I’m apprehensive to accept this verse at teaching hereditary sin nature. I welcome feedback if you think I am missing something. Again, I am thankful for your writing this.
I hope to add a second response to further explain why I reject both tenants of the doctrine of original sin and would appreciate your insight on that! Blessings brother!
Not sure I follow all of your reasoning, but I agree that Ephesians 2:3 doesn’t teach “guilty at conception”. To hereditary sin nature, I’ll reply to your next comment.
*see previous comment for why I do not believe the first tenant of Original Sin is taught by Ephesians 2.
I do not think that Ephesians 2, nor Gen 3, nor Romans 5 are teaching a hereditary corruption of our human nature nor teaching that Adam’s guilt is imputed to us so that we are literally born guilty for Adam’s sin (the author of this post brought up some very good biblical objections to the latter).
Therefore, since scripture does not directly teach the doctrine of OS, I believe we as Christians are free to accept or deny it based on how well it makes sense of other church doctrines or beliefs (I.e. its inter-doctrinal coherency). And here I want to raise three interesting areas to consider: Adam’s pre-fall condition, Jesus’ true humanity, and the fate of children lost in infancy.
1- The doctrine of original sin does not offer a good explanation for how Adam sinned. If Adam was made innocent and pure without a corrupted nature, how could he have sinned. It would seem that his free choice to obey or disobey God’s command, coupled with his good nature and good desire for knowledge were sufficient for his falling into sin. So here you have an explanation for sin that does not require a corruption of human nature when a person is created (I.e it is possible for one to sin without being born with a corrupt nature). So it would seem unnecessary to hypothesize corruption of human nature to explain sin.
2- to say all humans, post fall, are born with a corrupt nature hereditarily passed on to them would call into question Christs true humanity or affirm his true humanity, but say he was born with a corrupted human nature. Jesus, if born post-fall, should if truly human, just as any other person post-fall, have corruption passed on to him as well. Catholics posit a doctrine of immaculate conception to avoid this, but for Protestants, this is a serious tension. Some have posited that only men pass on the hereditary corruption, but this is besides the point. As long as a corrupt human nature is an essential attribute of being human post-fall, then Jesus would lack an essential attribute of being human…he would not be human. If a corruption of human nature is not an essential attribute of being human post-fall, then that would undermine the belief we are all born with a corrupt nature.
3- if babies are born with imputed guilt (I understand this is not the author’s position) then children who die in infancy are destined for hell. Since infants cannot receive salvation in most Protestant denominations (this is precisely why the doctrine of salvatory infant baptism exists), nor are they born saved, nor is there another saving grace apart from the atonement of Christ through which to be saved, there is no recourse.
Therefore I believe the best position for the Christian is to deny the doctrine of Original Sin. If, contrary to OS, we are born innocent, with no corruption of our nature, then it becomes easy to affirm infants who die early on are in heaven because they are innocent. It is easy to affirm Christ being born without corruption of his nature, as we are. And it becomes easy to explain how Adam sinned- for the same reason that we do today – a free choice to sin.
All that remains is to answer the valid question of how this view adequately explains the universality of sin (that is, why does everyone eventually sin). And I think the answer to why sin is so universal – that our animal nature, coupled with an environment that is suffused with moral evil and sin – is sufficient to explain how we all eventually sin.
To your first point: I would say that Adam sinned because an outside force tempted him to sin. Without temptation, he would’ve had no inclination to sin, and probably no concept of the idea.
Now, the trouble with denying the “evil inclination” is passed down hereditarily is verses like this one:
In order for that to be true, Adam’s sin MUST have had some effect on us. If it didn’t, then how could that verse be true? You said: “Some have posited that only men pass on the hereditary corruption, but this is besides the point.“. Actually, I think that’s exactly the point. If women/mothers are incapable of passing on this “evil inclination”, then that answers your point #2 quite handily. Mary passed on her humanity, making Jesus fully human. However, she was incapable of passing on the “flaw” of the evil inclination. So Jesus was fully human, but without any flaws (a spotless/unblemished lamb). Remember, and I can’t stress this enough: the corruption is NOT an essential part of human nature, any more than than mud thrown on a painting is part of the painting’s nature. It’s a corruption by definition.
Just because something is universally present doesn’t mean it’s part of the design/nature.
It’s this way with sin and mankind.
Think of a hereditary genetic defect. The defect is passed down, but is in no way an essential part of being human. It’s a defect that’s passed down; nothing more, nothing less.
I wish there was a way to reply to your previous comments 🙁 Our conversation is probably going to look a little choppy.
My point on Eph 2 is that it says “by nature children of WRATH” NOT “by nature children with CORRRUPTION”. And if Eph 2 never even mentions CORRUPTION of human nature why should we conclude this passage is teaching that we are born with a corrupt nature, as you believe? That does not follow – it’s not what this is teaching.
For your other comment, I think your analogy serves to make my point. The genetic defect is not an essential attribute of being human – and this defect is only passed down to SOME humans and not all, even as a person has both a mother and a father passing on genetic traits.
If you think of corruption in the same way (as not being an essential attribute to being human) what you are committed to, then, is that corruption is only passed down to SOME humans and not ALL humans, just the same as a genetic deformity. Which is to undermine the doctrine that ALL human beings are born with this corruption [genetic deformity].
Your point about this comes most clearly when you say “Just because something [sin] is universally present DOESN’T mean it’s part of the nature”. You’re saying “just because sin is in ALL humans, that doesn’t mean it’s part of our nature”, and I agree!! It sounds like you are thinking right here by saying sin is not part of our nature [at conception] even if it’s present in all of us.
I think in your Romans 5:19 citation, a good hermeneutic is crucial. Paul is using parallelism here. Consider who the “many” are that are made righteous through the obedience of Christ. It is not ALL who are made righteous through the obedience of Christ. Now, the “many” that were made sinners through the disobedience of Adam. Again, Paul does not mean “many” to = ALL (clear from his use of “many” with Christ). So it is not ALL who are made sinners through Adam – I would put babies, those with severe mental disabilities, and those who never sin (Christ) are in this area.
It would then only be those who CHOOSE to sin that are guilty. It would only be those who CHOOSE to put faith in Christ who are justified. This especially based on my argument from Eph 2 of how Paul links our CHOOSING to sin to our guilt nature.
If you are looking for a causal reason for why separation from God spreads to all men, Romans 5:12 gives you a clear connection. “Death spread to all men BECAUSE all sinned” NOT “because ADAM sinned” or “because all sinned IN ADAM” (which was the mistake of Augustine due to a translation error he had).
I disagree with your understanding of Romans 5:19. Paul previously argued in chapter 3 that “all have sinned”, and “there’s none righteous, not even one”. The many does equal “all” in both clauses of the verse. (See my series on UR for the latter category).
That said, I should have been more careful with my words, since that analogy broke down immediately. I understand “children of wrath by nature” to mean that everyone who descended from Adam has a sin nature, though of course they are also in the “image and likeness of God”. You could argue that Jesus didn’t possess the sin nature, but then must explain why (sin nature only passed through males does this). Or you could argue that the fact that Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) means that Jesus had the sin nature, but his Deity overcame/resisted that.
(And now that I’m thinking about it, that second one actually might make more sense since “For we don’t have a high priest who isn’t able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one tempted in all things the same way we are, yet without sin.” {Heb 4:15}. Hmm. I might find myself changing my mind on this point, though to be sure it’ll need more thought before I do. Regardless, it still require the sin nature to be passed down in a hereditary fashion, even if it isn’t biological. It absolutely could be spiritual, anot biological.)
All that said, as long as you agree that (1) we aren’t culpable for Adam’s sin and (2) that everyone sins, and (3) that we all sin because Adam sinned, (somehow, regardless of how) I’ll be less dogmatic about the rest. I personally think passing down a sinful nature (“by nature children of wrath”) makes perfect sense, and I’ve yet to see an alternate explanation that makes sense.
I tend to disagree with your statement:
“Without temptation, he would’ve had no inclination to sin, and probably no concept of the idea.”
This sounds like exactly what the couple tried in Gen 3:12-13:
Paraphrasing: “[Something outside tempted me and that’s why I sinned]”
And we know this was a blame-game by the couple to get around the real reason for their sin, so I think this casts some serious doubt on your theory. I doubt if Adam was being honest, he would say “If that serpent wouldn’t have tempted me, then I would never have sinned!”, as you say.
I think it was well within Adam’s power, before this external temptation, to have sinned. We know the two things that needed to happen for Eve to sin: 1 – she needed to desire the fruit. 2 – she needed to take the fruit (in disobedience to God’s command). Neither of which requires an external temptation.
Ah, I understand how you see the “all” in Romans 5 being every single person now…because you have an a-priori believe in ultimate redemption. I don’t think that’s a good thing to do though, but I can see how you get there. Once again, however, regardless of what UR means about “all”, the correct question to ask is what PAUL meant when he wrote “all”.
Firstly, Romans 3 does not make the case for hereditary corruption. It says “all have sinned”. Even on the view that this “all” means every single person, at BEST this is saying “every single person has sinned”…nothing more. It ISN’T saying “all are born with a corrupt nature”. You would have to add or twist this text to be affirming OS. So, again, Romans 3 is not a proof text for this doctrine.
But that’s at BEST. Given Paul’s immediate context in Romans 3 (and his whole purpose in writing Romans), his use of “all” is meant to mean “both Jews and Gentiles”. See v9 – “for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin”. Paul’s whole point to this Jewish church in Rome is in light of this and hence why we see Paul talk over and over again about Jew vs Gentiles in Romans (it’s his entire purpose) – to show that there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Greek in God’s dealings with man now. So v12 – “They have all [both Jews and Greeks] turned aside”. I also seriously doubt Paul has babies in mind when he uses “all” – he’s talking to a mature audience of believers.
And on your interpretation of Eph 2. I just have to say that’s not a good hermeneutic – to turn “You were by nature children of wrath” into “You had Adam’s corrupt nature passed down to you at birth”. Those two propositions aren’t even in the same ballpark. It doesn’t mention Adam at all. It doesn’t mention corruption at all. So how can you come to a conclusion that involves those. That’s eisegesis.
And yes, I agree with you that thinking the means by which Jesus did not have sin nature passed on to him was because he had no father is problematic. For multiple reasons, one of which would mean that maternal human clones (which have no biological father, like Jesus) are not be born with sin nature. These people exist in our world today – are you saying they are perfect?
However, I still think it doesn’t matter how you say it isn’t transferred or that Jesus somehow deletes this passed on sin nature via his divinity because in the end, if we base a definition of being human post-fall as requiring this attribute of a corrupted nature, then Jesus, as I said, is not human. If you say it isn’t a necessary attribute of being human, then this undercuts hereditary corruption.
Or perhaps you are saying that Jesus DID have a sin nature passed on to him but resisted/overcame that. I think this would be a better theory on your part, because now Jesus COULD adequately “sympathize with our weaknesses” and is tempted in the same ways that we are. And most importantly he has all the same attributes necessary for human being.
However, I think the problem with this view lies in the fact that Jesus doesn’t RID himself of a corrupt nature, but rather only OVERCOMES or RESISTS it. And so even as he resists this corrupt nature, Jesus would still carry this corruption around. And are we to say that the SPOTLESS, BLEMISHLESS, lamb of God had corruption within him?
I agree with your (1) we are not culpable for Adam’s sin and (3) that we all (people of accountable age) eventually sin because Adam was the floodgate through whom sin entered the world.
However, I disagree with what I think you mean by (2)…that every person (including babies) has sinned. Which just goes to underscore my point that Paul’s use of “all” does not include babies. I think this would be a gross misunderstanding to think that babies are sinning. You think a 2-hour-old baby is SINNING? I have a 3 month-old and I can assure you that is false.
Actually, my belief in UR came the other way around; all sinned = all will be made righteous… but that’s a discussion for another day. (I recommend you read the article series)
I mentioned Romans 3 for context to indicate that in Romans 5, “the many” does mean “all”. In Ephesians 2, I mentioned it simply to say that the “children of wrath” is part of our nature, though I understand you’d translate it differently. Also, I explicitly said I was eisegeting, and that inheriting the “evil inclination” is the only way that I personally see to make sense of that.
If I follow your argument correctly — and please correct me if I’m wrong — but it sounds like you’re saying that we can’t be born/conceived with a “evil inclination to sin” because then Jesus wouldn’t be spotless/unblemished. Am I understanding you correctly?
BTW, I think we agree on rather a lot. Tell me if you agree with the following:
(1) There is a point before someone sins, see Romans 9:13
(2) There is a point before someone can know to chose between good and evil, see Isaiah 7:15
(3) Since we aren’t punished for another person’s sins according to Ezekiel 18, then logically we aren’t guilty before God until we sin. (I don’t have scripture for this, but it does seem to follow logically.)
(4) Someone’s first sin would be quite early according to Genesis 8:21 (“the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth”), and the Hebrew word for “youth” there includes childhood. Looking to Isaiah 7:15, it’s likely not older than when the child is able to eat curds and honey. Today we know that’s at about 1 year. It seems that in ancient days children were weaned older, perhaps up to 2-3 years. (And acendotally, I’ve encountered more than one spiteful 1 year old, and even worse toddlers, so that fits.) Obviously they were eating some solid food before being completely weaned though, so I’ll stick with 1-2 as a guesstimate.
Right, surely UR is a different discussion 🙂
I still don’t see how you think Romans 3 informs “the many” = “all people ever alive” as a correct exegesis of Romans 5. Surely, you don’t think “all” in Romans 3 includes a 2-minute-old baby? Do you think a 2-minute-old baby has sinned? What sin has this newborn committed? I see this as a serious problem with this interpretation of “all”.
As I pointed out, Paul’s use of “all” in the majority of Romans is intended to mean “both Jews and Gentiles”, not “every single human being alive”. He’s not talking about infants.
Thank you for clarifying how you understand Eph 2 to support the first part of the doctrine of OS. My only comment is that it is NEVER a good practice to eisegete with Scripture. We should always let our reading of Scripture inform our doctrines, not our doctrines inform our reading of Scripture. ALWAYS.
So, if you recall, my argument for not believing that we are “born/conceived with an evil inclination to sin” is only partly made by thinking through how this doctrine would apply to Jesus. My overall argument is this:
1. The bible does not teach (through proper exegesis alone) the doctrine of original sin in Gen 3, Romans5, Eph 2, Psalm 51:5, etc etc
2. On matters the bible does not teach directly, we should remain open to the options, but should we want a coherent explanation, we should pick a doctrine based on how well it accords/coheres with the rest of our theological beliefs and Scripture.
3. All of the doctrine of original sin does not cohere with our other theological beliefs. And I gave some examples – it doesn’t cohere with Jesus’ true humanity, it doesn’t cohere with Adam’s sinning without a corruption within himself, and it doesn’t cohere with what most Christians would affirm which is that infants who die are not automatically going to hell.
4. Therefore, we ought to reject all of the doctrine of original sin.
My point by saying “Jesus was the spotless, blemishless lamb” was to show that this contradicts the view that Jesus had a corruption passed on to him. And is one part of my argument for how this part of original sin does not accord/cohere with our belief about Christ.
Yes, we do agree on at least half of OS! Which is great. I’m just saying the other half doesn’t make sense either!
(1) Can you explain your question more? Because, yes, I was alive before I first sinned…so there was a point when I was an infant when I didn’t sin. If you’re asking “did you sin before you were conceived” I would say, “no, that’s ridiculous”.
(2) Yes, there is a time in someone’s life when they don’t know God’s law and so aren’t culpable for actions (Luke 12:48, James 4:17). For some, that time may be a short time, for others (like the people described in Romans 5:13) it may be longer (a whole lifetime!). Also this is confirmed extra-biblically by observation and science…a 3-day-old doesn’t know right and wrong.
(3) I actually think it’s possible we can be punished for someone else’s sins and pardoned by someone else’s payment. I don’t claim to support that biblically, but the notion of vicarious liability is convincing. A good example of this was Boeing’s management’s liability in the 737Max case where it’s engineers committed malpractice. The upper management was found liable even though they did not know about or commit any ethical violations. The same is true in the justice system for payment of debts. This is one theory for how Christ’s atonement can be imputed to us – through his vicarious liability to us. However, on the topic of original sin, my view agrees with yours – that we are not punished for Adam’s sins – namely because this is not taught in Scripture. However, I’m open if someone wants to try a theoretical case of “we are vicariously liable to Adam because he was the federal head of all of us”.
(4) As you’ve noted when reading Psalms 51:5, we have to be careful when getting church doctrines from text in a genre that is highly hyperbolic. And I think this is also the case with Gen 8:21 and Isaiah 7. Translating these, just like Psalm 51:5 and Job 31:18, with a wooden literalism would be a mistake, I think. Often, these words were chosen for effect (to hyperbolize the point) and not chosen to be a perfect detail (much less to inform a doctrine of the church).
What I think a good hermeneutic would yield:
Gen 8:21 – “man has been desiring sin / been corrupt for a long time in his life”
As for Isaiah 7 – “there was a time early in Jesus’ life when he did not know good from evil.” I don’t think the author intended for Jesus’ eating curds and honey to be the indication that he is now aware of good and evil. It was an expression for “early in his life”.
I don’t think either of these verses (or Psalms or Job) were intended to be picked apart with such exegetical precision and literalism at this level. I think if the authors of these hyperbolic texts were here today they’d say “you missed my point if you’re digging for deeper meanings in my word choice”.
For a better understanding of “nature” in Eph. 2:3, you also might look at Thayer’s Greek Lexicon definition C for the word (Strong’s 5449). Even though it can mean B – “Birth, Physical Origin”, Thayer says:
“c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace;”
So Eph 2:3 is most likely not saying being under wrath is “by birth” but “by long habit”. So this is not teaching something inherited at birth. Context is key!
I’ll reply to your long comment later, but realize that the primary meaning of φύσις according to Thayer’s is:
And another lexicon has:
While the meaning you suggest is a possible, it’s a secondary meaning not the primary one. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the most that could be said about this word is that it’s inconclusive. Admittedly, that’s a win for your position in the sense of removing a verse from arguing against your view.
(And for those reading this conversation, you can look up several lexicon’s views on this page.)
Interesting! That’s ignorance on my part about how Thayer’s works. Can you tell me how you know that the first lexicon (a.) given by Thayer is primary and how you know the rest are secondary? It’s not clear to me how that distinction is made when he just lists a…b…c. That would also make lexicon (b.) “by birth” secondary, right?
And yes, I agree the word itself would be inconclusive when void from the context. But I still would argue that context determines meaning. And as Thayer rightly indicates in (c.), the preceding context of Eph 2:3 determines the meaning of “nature” as I demonstrated in one of my earlier responses. So ultimately, the meaning of this greek word is not inconclusive when taken in Paul’s context.
Aka…it is certain that Paul is NOT teaching that we are born under God’s wrath here. He is clearly teaching we are under God’s wrath because of how we have walked, lived, and indulged in our flesh.
All following is given in a sense for sharing and friendship.
I take exception to the statement that Adam sinned. It is for a technical and metaphysical reason. In Romans 5:12 sin entered through him and death [spiritual and material] through sin and death passed into all men, upon which [1] they all sinned.
They sinned, because they were alienated from the life of God! Mortal. (Eph 4:17-19). 18… οντεςG1510being απηλλοτριωμενοιG526 alienated from τηςG3588 the ζωηςG2222 life τουG3588 θεουG2316 of God, (Eph 4:17-19). They’re darkened in the intellect, blind because the eyes of their mind or heart have not been enlightened (Eph 1:18).
Jesus said to his disciples before His death and resurrection and Acts 2, … if you being evil know how to give good gifts… Have you looked at this word for evil πονηρός G4190… adj. from pónos (G4192), labor, sorrow, pain. Evil in a spiritual sense. I see the origin of this state or condition in the context of Gen 3:16-19 and verses 22-24, Heb.
What was Adam’s condition before he “ate”? He was still clothed and sin had not yet entered into the world yet! Sin entered as a consequence of his disobedience. And I find what Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:14 very interesting, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression [sin?]”
Note: One way of seeing this is in the context that Adam is a type of the coming one (Rom 5:14) so, not being deceived did he willingly give himself up for Eve as Christ did for His Assembly? Hmm.
[1] Mar_2:4 … on or uponG1909 whichG3739 the paralytic was laying.
Luk_19:30 … you will find a colt on or uponG1909 whichG3739 no one of men ever
yet sat …
Joh_1:33 … that one said to me, uponG1909 whichG3739 you see the Spirit coming
down and abiding on Him …
All who came out of Adam after he lost access to the life of God [the began to know (ginṓskō G1097 not oida G1492)] they were naked (not clothed with the spirit)] are natural or soulish and not spiritual (1Cor 2:14-16 mind of spirit (Rom 8:5) or Christ v.16) and they only have the mind of the flesh (Rom 8:7).
You know the Nicene Creed talks about begotten not made. Well those begotten out of [ek G1537] God (John 1:13; 3:3 from above) don’t sin and are not able to sin (1John 3:9) Adam was made and not begotten, he could disobey. Study the two different laws of being (Rom 8:2) and the two different minds noted above. The Holy Scriptures illustrate their strikingly different capacities and abilities. For example see John 8:43-44 and 47. In v 43 there is a Hebrew idiom where to hear is to understand, receive, or believe, as in John 9:27; John 10:3; John 12:47. Acts 3:22-23. In Deu 29:4 Yahweh had not given Israel what one gets by being so begotten.
Are you familiar with Trench and his Synonyms of the New Testament? Sin is a condition yes, it is also the lawlessness in 1John 3:4. Here’s a good clue, … by faith Law we establish (Rom 3:31). So can we conclude that anything we do from our self or “old man” is work (fruit?) of the flesh called sin? Boy none of my lexicons or word study dictionaries have than as a definition for nomos.
Here’s the quote and cite of what I agree that the root of hamartia is:
Buttman’s conjecture (Lexilogus, p. 85, English ed.), that it belongs to the root μέρος, μειρομαι, on which a negative intransitive verb, to be without ones share [part, portion], to miss, was formed (see Xenophon, Cyrop.i.6. 13), has found more favour (see a long note by Fritzsche, on Rom. v 12, with excellent philology and execrable theology). Ninth ed. 1880 reprint Eerdman’s 1953, Pg. 240, § LXVI ἁμαρτια, …
Obviously the root bares fruits, sins and deviations. Rom 14:23 … anything not out of faith is sin. In Rom 10:17, “then faith comes out of hearing and hearing through the word [2] of God/Christ.In 2Cor 6:15 it says, … what part (meris G3313 verb from G3310 meros noun) a believer with an unbeliever? In Rom 12:3 as God divided G3307 a measure of faith to each.
[2] [ῥημα G4487 from rhéō (G4483), to speak. So first Matt 10:20; then Jer 7:23; Deu 8:3; Matt 4:4; Rom 1:5, 16:26; producing righteousness (Rom 9:30 δικαιοσυνην δεG1343 G1161 τηνG3588 εκG1537 πιστεωςG4102) so now yield your members as slaves to δικαιοσυνηG1343 ειςG1519 αγιασμονG38.
About what King David said in Psalm 51:5, does it make any sense if he was saying was that he was conceived by parents who were in the condition of sin or being alienated from the life of God. He certainly was not saying that the act of sexual intercourse in a Lawful marriage bed (Heb 13:4) was sin.
Anyway those are just a few thoughts that came to me while I was reading your blog for the first time. I’m hope that you may agree with me somewhere is all these thoughts. I am still growing and learning and I’ll be six feet under when it stops or if the Lord comes in our life time the 1Cor 13:12 will take care of it. At that point our problem with a unity of the faith in Eph 4:13 may be fullfilled. Hope something here can be edifying to you. Eph 4:16. Amen, God bless.
After reading some comments, which I did not do last night before I gave my limited understanding. I am going to give you one of my precious gems of truth that was given to me. Have you ever even heard of “law of being” before? The reason why I have doubt that you have is that I have diligently looked. The source and origin for it is in a law book of man on evidence, written by a man named John Henry Wigmore in 1913. The chapter it is found in is called, “Evidence to prove identity.” This book is still used to this day, as far as I know, at the Judicial College in Wash. D.C.
Okay, so on page 68 he writes: “Resemblance may be fatal to identity when the law of being is changed.” When the old man in us is reckoned as crucified with Christ and we no longer live but Christ lives in us, no longer living just by “right, natural reason”, but by the faith of the Son of God, ones identity necessarily has changed. This is why we are exhorted not to be ‘double souled’ or minded in James or lukewarm in the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Another way of answering concerning identity: Who is but the form following the function of what. I interpret this to mean, who one is, is determined by the name they do and say their words and works. Paul in Colossians 3:16-17 put it this way to the saints, “that whatever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and Father through Him. Name denotes nature. This general rule is based upon the study of the names of God in Holy Scripture where different but not contradictory aspects of His nature are revealed in His different names. El Olam is the age abiding God (Heb 1:2). Do I need to prove that Olam is cognate with aiōn? “That in Holy Scripture God is spoken of under different names, each given with a purpose, to set forth some distinct virtue or characteristic of His nature”, Andrew Jukes, Names of God in Holy Scripture. PDF available online. A very interesting and illuminating study to say the least. Now, what I said in my comment last night concerning Romans 8:2, no where else will you find as far as I know, will you find the only two laws of being for mankind. The phrase is not in any law dictionary or philosophy of law called Jurisprudence or any book on metaphysics. Neither does anyone of the Christian churches in any of their dictionaries, commentaries, handbooks etc. I find it very strange that something so important, the natural or soulish man and the ones of faith are completely silent on. Holy Scripture is not silent on this though, which when properly understood may be another proof of it’s being θεοπνευστος! 2Tim 3:16, Deu 8:3, Matt 4:4.
Oh, here’s a link to Archive where you can find this rare book entitled “Principles of Judicial Proof” Go to page 68 and the cite is found at the bottom of the second paragraph about the middle of the page. I suggest reading the context of the admission.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Principles_of_Judicial_Proof/4ho-AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover.
God bless. May the grace, mercy and peace be multiplied to all my brethren of our Lord, Christ Jesus who has supplied to us the victory in overcoming.
But you still belive sin is passed through the sperm (father) , and not the egg (mother)? Common sense tells us that’s impossible.
Being made in the image of God also explains why Jesus, God himself, could become human. It is the only body capable of expressing the divine while still being a creature. It’s his image.
You think God creates a sinful soul and sends it to the womb? God is the one that breaths life into a fetus, just like he did with Adam. God is the one who stitches us together in our womb – he is not giving us a broken nature.
It’s Gnostic to say a our humanity, from birth, is inherently depraved with a sin nature.
Sinful nature cannot be passed on, just like a drug addiction cannot be passed on.
You say Jesus inherited this nature but never succumbed to it. But Adam and Eve weren’t naturally sinful and they gave into sin. You don’t need a sinful nature to be feel inclined to sin – that’s just temptation. James says it best (James 1:13-15)
So God is not the one tempting people, neither does he create sinful souls. Everyone just has the potential to sin.
The Jews never believed in sinful nature, except for some Talmudic writers. There’s no way an eminent pharisee like Paul believed this nonsense.
The ante-nicene fathers didn’t believe it either. Seriously, look up the fathers and see what they wrote.
It was Manechian gnostic Augustine who came up with this doctrine.
Jesus said in John 8:34, ‘Truly, truly I say to you that every person who sins is a slave to sin”. Obviously one who sins becomes a slave, not the other way around.
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/new-testament/the-sinful-nature-translation-dilemma-and-the-upcoming-niv-revision/
EDIT: I just added a section to the article with some more information on epigenetics.
I have never believed that sin is passed through the father, though an inclination to sin being passed through the father makes some sense, since the Bible is clear that Adam’s sin — not Eve’s sin even though she sinned first — is what caused the proliferation of sin in this world. (The inclination to sin might be passed through both but Jesus overcame it, that seems less likely given epigenetics)
Perhaps you’ve never heard of epigenetics? It allows for the behavior of parents to affect how their children behave. Yes I’m serious. It’s 100% possible for the behavior of your parents to affect your behavior, even if you were separated at birth and never saw them.
Try this link, which is a bit more layman friendly than the research papers on the topic: What is epigenetics? (Can the legacy of trauma be passed down the generations?)
Do also note that it seems to be passed down through males; possibly exclusively, but at least primarily.
Why can’t this be true of an inclination to sin? Why can’t Adam have passed down an epigenetic legacy of an inclination to sin that persists to this day? So no, God isn’t creating “sinful souls”, but the inclination to sin can still be passed down. It doesn’t even need to be a spiritual thing either; it can be purely biology.
Yes, I was aware of epigenetics. I wouldn’t attribute sinful nature to it though.
Even though trauma is passed on there’s no biblical basis to assume a sinful nature is passed on. Paul definitely wasn’t thinking about this. The early church never believed he was, neither did the church fathers. This concept is Western and influenced by Paganism. It’s not found in the Eastern orthodoxy.
It’s also not primarily or exclusively a male thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899063/
Adam was not more responsible than Eve. Both of them were held accountable for their own sin.
Do you think a single sin committed by a father makes his children inclined to sin? Paul didn’t say Adam was the main cause. That’s just used for a comparison with Jesus. People compare Eve to Mary as well.
(It’s also funny how some blame Eve for the fall when reading Genesis, but when they want to uphold male headship they blame Adam for the fall)
It’s odd to use epigenetics, recently discovered, to argue for sinful nature, something never even taught by the Bible.
Why do you even want to believe this doctrine?
Did you know epigenomes can be edited?
You said: “Adam was not more responsible than Eve”, but the New Testament explicitly states that “sin entered into the world through one man” (Romans 5:12), and “the many were made sinners through the disobedience of one man” (Romans 5:19). Not one woman, one man; even though Eve sinned first. (I don’t blame Eve for the fall BTW, I blame Adam. He was standing right there according to Genesis 3:6, and he wasn’t deceived while she was according to 2 Timothy 2:14)
How do you explain Adam being blamed and not Eve?
I’m not using epigenetics to argue for an inherited inclination to sin, I’m using it to point that — contrary to what you have insisted — it is possible to pass behavior down genetically. Since behavior can be passed down, why can’t an inclination to sin be passed down? That doesn’t prove it is, but it does soundly refute your claims (mostly in your comments on the other article) that it couldn’t be passed down. Epigenetics proves that it could indeed be passed down. (And yes I know epigenetics can change)
As for why I would want to believe it, the answer is because I think the Scripture teaches it (Ephesians 2:3 for example).
“Without further adieu”?!
You already lost me at
“Without further adieu?” but what’s with “Is Original Sin is biblical?”
Both would be my dyslexia manifesting. Now fixed and thanks for pointing those out.
This is a good teaching but what about Psalms 58 vs 3
An explanation of the verse
(Psalms 51:5 ) with the other verses, is very simple, _:
(Psalms 51:5 ):“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”
Meaning of :’brought forth in iniquity’ :_
Satan brought this sin, but
Adam and Eve did not repent
neither made any sacrifice or atonement for this sin. When God asked them, about their disobedience, they blamed other.Consequently, God cursed them, & drove from Eden. This is spiritual death, i. e. going away from God.
Adam’s son Habel did the sacrifice of blood, and God liked it. But Cain killed him, and God cursed Cain.
‘1)ln ( Romans 5 :12) it is written,’ Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin;’ death passed upon all men.’
2) (Lamentations 5:7) says,
‘ Our fathers sinned, and are no more; It is we who have borne their iniquities.’
Sin remained as it is,i.e.from generation to generation. How a sinful person will give birth to a pure one?
And though the person is forgiven for his sins, yet sin remain there and there only in his children. Because it is a curse. The person was saved by the sacrifice, atonement or by Gods grace in old days.
Prophet Samuel and Eli were saved and choosed by God, by His mercy. lt is written in ( Romans 9: 11) ‘For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.’
3) Eli’s was an annointed priest, God used to talk with him. Yet Eli’ s sons, Hophni and Phinehas,were good-for-
nothing priests; they had no faith in the LORD. While the meat for sacrifice was boiling, the priest’s servant would come with a three-
pronged fork. (1 Samuel 2:12-36 )
4) ‘And God said, “Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.'( 1 Samuel 3 : 14)
5)’The child Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the LORD, and also with men.
(1 Samuel 2 : 26)
But,
6) ” Samuel’ s sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.'(1 Samuel 8 : 3)
So, sin used to remain as it is, when there was no sacrifice or atonement.lt is because, these people were under the law.
7)’ And according to law,
without shedding of blood there was no remission. ‘( Hebrews 9:22 )
Now in the New Testament,
8) ( Ephesians 2 : 15)
‘The law was an enmity, Jesus abolished in his flesh the enmity. ‘
8) ‘And the law made nothing perfect,’. ( Hebrews 7: 19)
The law was till Jesus.
So,
10) (Romans 5 :19 ) ‘As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.’
11) (Romans 5 :14)
‘Death reigned even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.’
That’s why, by birth a child remains in iniquity. When he grows and knows God, he will be saved either by repentance, belief or by Gods grace.
========
So, you cut off Romans 5:12 before the end of the verse:
Romans 5:12 categorically states that the death from sin is because all have sinned, not because we inherited guilt. Again, please looked at Ezekiel chapter 18 which makes it explicitly clear that sons are not held guilty by God for the sins of their fathers.
You asked how a guilty person could give birth to an innocent one. I’ll set aside the obvious example of Mary the mother of Jesus and point out that the article specifically says that we inherit an inclination to sin (corruption). However, we aren’t guilty for this inclination/temptation until we yield it, for as Deuteronomy 24:16 says:
If this does not convince you, I would highly recommend that you read all of Ezekiel chapter 18.
I believe that the term: Sin Nature cannot be found in the Word of God and therefore should not be used in one’s arguments. I do see this term: Old Nature, used to describe a nature that has not been redeemed. Jonathan Cahn included an article in his book: “The Book of Mysteries,” titled: ‘The Divine Law of Adjectives’ (pg. 240), where he points out that in Hebrew and German, the noun comes first and then the adjective: not white flower, but flower white. I therefore think that the term: Sin Nature should be seen and understood as a nature (sarx) that sins. Nature or flesh is (maybe) a neutral term: flesh = flesh. One more example from Cahn: not an adulterous woman but a woman who committed adultery. Fully enjoyed this article.
To make an analogous application, the word “Trinity” isn’t found in scripture, so should we not use it in our arguments either? You see my point. Perhaps we should seek a more precise term – I would be in favor of that – but I think it’s a mistake to say we shouldn’t use a theological phrase because it doesn’t appear in the Bible.
I completely disagree with your adjectives point because language simply doesn’t work that way, and certainly not in Greek.