Sin Is Not Hereditary

[Kade Rystalmane]

The church of Christ teaches that sin is not hereditary either as a nature or in terms of guilt.

Sin is defined as transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4) whether this be the Law of the Garden (Genesis 2-3), the Patriarchal Law (Genesis 4-cross for non-Israelites), the Law of Moses (Exodus-cross for Israelites), or the Law of Christ (from the cross onward). To be guilty of sin, one must individually transgress God's Law.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Note here a few things.

First of all, the soul that sins shall die. That means the soul must first be alive. To teach hereditary sin one must conclude that the soul is conceived dead, that the person who is born is spiritually stillborn. A soul that is already dead cannot die. The idea that the soul that sins is a soul that dies implies that souls are conceived and born alive and then at some later point in life can sin and die spiritually. This alone destroys the idea of hereditary sin.

Second, the prophet by inspiration states that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father and that the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, not upon anyone else. This explicitly shows that neither the guilt or the nature of sin from the parent is transferred to the child.

While the consequences of sinful parents can affect generations (Ex. 20:5), this is not the guilt or the nature passing down.

Lastly, there is no verse in scripture that talks about a sinful nature or defines what that even means. Sin nature is an entirely extra-Biblical concept and so is rejected by the church of Christ. It must be further noted in this last point that the natures of men can and do change, so even if we were able to talk about what a sinful nature is from scripture, that alone is insufficient to demand the conclusion that such a nature is passed on from parent to child.

An example I like to give of this is in Romans 5. People who teach hereditary sin go here often to try and prove that sin is hereditary, but it actually shows the opposite. Grant for a moment that whatever Adam did changed the nature of all mankind to that of some kind of sinful, corrupted being inherently. Romans 5 says that whatever Adam did, Jesus undid. For those who are in Christ Jesus, our natures have been transformed again so that we are a new creature in Christ. Thus, any offspring Christians have will not have the nature of Adam...

...unless you want to argue that Adam's sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

In Truth and Love.

 

[shnarkle]

Lastly, there is no verse in scripture that talks about a sinful nature or defines what that even means.

Paul seems to clearly define it in Romans with the 'carnal man' who cannot please God.

Sin nature... is passed on from parent to child.

Unless you're going to present evidence of some evolutionary process, that's pretty much how it works. A sinful fallen human being produces sinful fallen human beings. If you don't want to look at it from a biological perspective, it is even more pronounced culturally.

Adam did changed the nature of all mankind to that of some kind of sinful, corrupted being inherently.

You've just contradicted your OP.

Romans 5 says that whatever Adam did, Jesus undid.

There are qualifications though, e.g. "each in their own appointed time".

For those who are in Christ Jesus, our natures have been transformed again so that we are a new creature in Christ. Thus, any offspring Christians have will not have the nature of Adam...

True, and also points out that your OP could use some revision.

...unless you want to argue that Adam's sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

In Truth and Love.

Christ's blood couldn't prevent Adam from sinning, could it? By the same token, Adam's sin doesn't prevent Christ from atoning for it.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Paul seems to clearly define it in Romans with the 'carnal man' who cannot please God.

Actually, this is the duality of all men. The carnal of chapters 7 and 8 are the physical desires (that's what carnal means) and if we allow those to control us, to lead us into temptation (1 John 2:16) and we give into that, then we are carnal. The spiritual self, though, is that which is created in the image of God and is capable of focusing on spiritual things, higher and better things. When we allow that part of ourselves to control us, especially when educated by the Word of God, then we can totally please God. Furthermore, these are a metaphor for the law of Moses vs the law of Christ (law of faith).

Thus, carnal doesn't mean sinful. It means physical, fleshly. It is that from which sins can arise if we allow that part of ourself to control, but it is not inherently sinful in its nature. Those desires are good, part of our design (e.g. procreation, desire for material means to protect ourselves, desire to do well in all things). It is only Catholicism that corrupted the concept and turned it into something inherently evil from the beginning.

Unless you're going to present evidence of some evolutionary process, that's pretty much how it works. A sinful fallen human being produces sinful fallen human beings. If you don't want to look at it from a biological perspective, it is even more pronounced culturally.

Please explain how, from the biological perspective, sin or a "sinful nature" (which again is not defined in scripture) is passed on.

If all you mean by sinful nature is really carnal nature, then it's a mislabeling because our physical self isn't inherently sinful. It just has the same drives as all other living organisms. However, since we have a moral capacity, those things can become inordinate in their capacity. The desire to procreate can become fornication, adultery, rape, lust, etc. The desire for material means to protect and feed ourselves can become inordinate and sinful if we let it control us, turning into coveteousness, jealousy, theft, etc. But the carnal self isn't inherently sinful, it's just the lower form of self and must be controlled by the spirit. Animals don't have this higher self and thus they cannot be condemned for their actions. They don't have the capacity for inordinate anything since they don't have a soul/mind as we do to understand what that is or abide by it.

"Adam did changed the nature of all mankind to that of some kind of sinful, corrupted being inherently."​

You've just contradicted your OP.

No. You cut the sentence at the wrong place. The sentence begins "Grant for a moment that whatever Adam did" which means I was granting something for the sake of an argument I was making, not contradicting myself or conceding anything generally.

There are qualifications though, e.g. "each in their own appointed time".

You will have to elaborate.

True, and also points out that your OP could use some revision.

No. If we change our nature through disobedience and lack of faith, rebellion, etc. Then we can have our nature changed again. This doesn't contradict the OP.

Christ's blood couldn't prevent Adam from sinning, could it? By the same token, Adam's sin doesn't prevent Christ from atoning for it.

This doesn't address what I was saying. The point being made was that if Adam's sin changed our design, then Christ's actions rebooted us to the original design in the garden and we have nothing corrupt to pass on to our children.

In Truth and Love.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, this is the duality of all men.

Sure. You can't have one without the other.

The carnal of chapters 7 and 8 are the physical desires (that's what carnal means) and if we allow those to control us, to lead us into temptation (1 John 2:16) and we give into that, then we are carnal.

Even if one doesn't allow the carnal to lead us into temptation, just like an observant Pharisee, we are still carnal.

The spiritual self, though, is that which is created in the image of God and is capable of focusing on spiritual things, higher and better things. When we allow that part of ourselves to control us, especially when educated by the Word of God, then we can totally please God.

I disagree because one is still making their righteousness dependent upon their "will or effort" Rom.9:16. One can see it as a duality of selves, but ultimately Christ simply points out that one must deny themselves completely without reservation. The self is at the root of the problem, and must be denied regardless of how one chooses to view themselves. In other words, the spiritual self is just as deceptive and the carnal. When one denies the carnal, their battle is not with flesh and blood, but spiritual powers in high places.

Furthermore, these are a metaphor for the law of Moses vs the law of Christ (law of faith).

Very true! Good point. If one cannot graduate to living through the faith of Christ, they need to continue attempting to keep God's law as best they can simply because it's the right thing to do. Since it is the right thing to do, it should be kept as best as one can possibly keep God's law. The law is what points us to Christ.

Thus, carnal doesn't mean sinful.

Carnal means exactly that. One cannot help but sin when walking after the flesh.

It means physical, fleshly. It is that from which sins can arise if we allow that part of ourself to control, but it is not inherently sinful in its nature.

Again, what you're presenting is a works based salvation. We can prevent sin from occurring by our own will and effort, but this will never be enough to change our hearts. God has to give that to us. If we could save ourselves by our own will and effort, Christ died in vain.

Those desires are good, part of our design (e.g. procreation, desire for material means to protect ourselves, desire to do well in all things). It is only Catholicism that corrupted the concept and turned it into something inherently evil from the beginning.

Catholicism admits that humanity was created good, but fell through disobedience, and just like you referred to with the two testaments being a metaphor, we all manifest the exact same fall of Adam after we're born. The story is a metaphor for human nature, and our own inherent compulsion to disobey God, and our own higher nature. Transgression, by its very definition is sinful.

Moreover, once one has elevated themselves to the higher self, or New Testament, the author of Hebrews points out that "there remains no more sacrifice for sin". Those sins committed under the Old Covenant are covered, but not under the New because there are no sins committed under the New Covenant. Hebrews 9:15;10:26

Please explain how, from the biological perspective, sin or a "sinful nature" (which again is not defined in scripture) is passed on.

It's passed on the exact same way all sin is passed on; i.e. by transgressing God's commands. We are created to fulfill certain commands, yet everyone at some point in their development ceases from mirroring God, and begins to make ourselves master. Instead of abiding by God's will, we begin to follow our own will instead. Your comments show that you still believe in leaving it up to your own will rather than surrendering to God's mercy according to his sovereign will.

If all you mean by sinful nature is really carnal nature, then it's a mislabeling because our physical self isn't inherently sinful.

It's a moot point because everyone has already sinned. Everyone has already succumbed to the temptation of believing that our own will and efforts can save us. Some even go so far as to believe that the will of their higher spiritual selves can save them. This seems to be your position.

It just has the same drives as all other living organisms.

And the Mosaic law punishes other living organisms as well.

However, since we have a moral capacity, those things can become inordinate in their capacity.

Other species have moral capacities as well. When one of them violates those mores, they are shunned, or killed as well.

The desire to procreate can become fornication, adultery, rape, lust, etc. The desire for material means to protect and feed ourselves can become inordinate and sinful if we let it control us, turning into coveteousness, jealousy, theft, etc. But the carnal self isn't inherently sinful, it's just the lower form of self and must be controlled by the spirit.

The self doesn't actually exist to begin with. It's just an abstract construction of the mind. Once one becomes aware of this simple fact, the self(lower and higher) is obliterated. The problem has been cut at the root.

Animals don't have this higher self and thus they cannot be condemned for their actions.

And yet the Mosaic law does provide punishment for them. Paul points out that all of creation groans because of Adam's sin. So not only can they be condemned for their own sin, they're condemned because of Adam's, (and ours as well!) sin.

They don't have the capacity for inordinate anything since they don't have a soul/mind as we do to understand what that is or abide by it.

They do have the capacity, and when one crosses the line, they are attacked. Look at a bitch with her pups sometime, and you'll see that they get out of line quite frequently, and she immediately disciplines them. This behavior extends to the pack as a whole. This phenomenon is pervasive in numerous species, e.g. whales, dolphins, wolves, coyotes, etc. They all have standards of behavior that are acceptable, and standards that are unacceptable. That's the definition of morals.

No. You cut the sentence at the wrong place. The sentence begins "Grant for a moment that whatever Adam did" which means I was granting something for the sake of an argument I was making, not contradicting myself or conceding anything generally.

Then I don't understand what point you were trying to make.

You will have to elaborate.

Jesus provides the way for reconciliation, but that revelation isn't immediately apparent to everyone simultaneously. We all have to discover it before we can receive it. If this weren't the case, no one would need to hear the gospel proclaimed to them in the first place because we would all already know it. This is what is prophetically pointed out by the prophets as well. There will come a time when no one will need to ask if you know Christ because everyone will know Christ.

No. If we change our nature through disobedience and lack of faith, rebellion, etc. Then we can have our nature changed again. This doesn't contradict the OP.

There is no change if the lower nature isn't evil to begin with. This is your claim, no? You can't change the strips on a Zebra. No amount of will or effort can change tares into wheat, or wolves into sheep. There are lost sheep which can be found, but all lost wolves are destined to remain lost.

This doesn't address what I was saying. The point being made was that if Adam's sin changed our design, then Christ's actions rebooted us to the original design in the garden and we have nothing corrupt to pass on to our children.

Christ actions display the way to reboot. No one is automatically rebooted. Just like you said before with the metaphor of the two testaments, the same holds true with regards to the fact that We are all created in God's image. The ability to reflect God is according to God's will while the ability to reflect the world is according to our will. God's will is the truth while our will is a false command. We automatically pass on corrupted code because we place our offspring into a corrupt world. It is impossible not to pass it on because the first thing we do is compel our sons and daughters to see themselves as separate from the world around them. No child is born that way. They are all born without any sense of self identity whatsoever. It must be taught, and it is taught. What does the bible tell us? It says that Christ is Emanuele or God with us, and that is what we as icons of God actually are.

In Truth and Love.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Sure. You can't have one without the other.

I don't disagree with you, but the carnal man (the physical self) has been that way since Day 6. It hasn't changed and Adam's fall didn't change our design. It just added knowledge of law/sin.

Even if one doesn't allow the carnal to lead us into temptation, just like an observant Pharisee, we are still carnal.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Carnal doesn't equate to sinful. Carnal is fleshly, physical.

I disagree because one is still making their righteousness dependent upon their "will or effort" Rom.9:16.

This is not the meaning or context of Romans 9:16. I'm not a Calvinist and believe man must choose God through obedient faith. This is what it means to be spiritually minded, to seek God, to act on what God has said rather than our own inordinate physical desires.

One can see it as a duality of selves, but ultimately Christ simply points out that one must deny themselves completely without reservation. The self is at the root of the problem, and must be denied regardless of how one chooses to view themselves. In other words, the spiritual self is just as deceptive and the carnal. When one denies the carnal, their battle is not with flesh and blood, but spiritual powers in high places.

Again, these are just assertions. They have no backing in scripture. I'm looking at the very definitions of words. σαρκικός (sarkikos) is fleshly, physical, of the body. It comes from σάρξ (sarx) which means physical body. There is nothing of sinfulness inherent in the concept as God created us with a sarx in Genesis 1-2. This assumption of sinfulness inherent in the physical self is a Catholic artifact, not a scriptural one.

The context of "deny himself" is Christ's words in Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23. In this context, Peter makes the confession that Christ is the Son of God. Then Jesus says that He must suffer many things including death, which is God's plan for salvation. Peter doesn't understand and tries to tell Jesus no and Jesus says "get behind me Satan". Peter wanted a different plan in his ignorance. Right after this, Jesus says deny yourself and follow me. It's about which plan do we follow? Do we follow Moses? Do we follow self-righteousness (our own plan)? Or do we follow God's plan? It's not about denying all the physical desires we have completely and without reservation. This is actually absurd since we would have to stop eating, drinking, excreting, and procreating since these are all physical desires. This is what the Catholics teach to an extent.

Very true! Good point. If one cannot graduate to living through the faith of Christ, they need to continue attempting to keep God's law as best they can simply because it's the right thing to do. Since it is the right thing to do, it should be kept as best as one can possibly keep God's law. The law is what points us to Christ.

But no one is under the law of Moses today and non-Jews never were. It's moot now because that system has been entirely taken away. Spiritually at the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15) and physically when Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed (Olivet, Revelation, etc.).

Carnal means exactly that. One cannot help but sin when walking after the flesh.

No. That is not the definition of the word carnal. See above.

Again, what you're presenting is a works based salvation.

I do not have an issue with this. Works of obedience are required by God to be saved by His grace. Doesn't mean the works do the saving, but the works are the conduit through which God's grace flows to us. Just like a lamp is powered by electricity but needs a cord to operate. Grace is the electricity. Obedient faith is the cord. A cord alone does nothing. Electricity (supplied to all) has no way to get to the lamp. Gotta have both, each doing their own part 100%.

We can prevent sin from occurring by our own will and effort, but this will never be enough to change our hearts. God has to give that to us. If we could save ourselves by our own will and effort, Christ died in vain.

Again, these are just assertions from a denominational foundation. I'm not disagreeing 100%, but we would mean different things when we say these things.

Yes, we can prevent sin from occurring by our own choice.
Changing our hearts is done by the gospel. (Romans 10:17; 1:16; James 1:21; Acts 15:9)
God gave us the gospel, which changes our hearts.(Romans 10:17; 1:16; James 1:21; Acts 15:9)
No one here is talking about saving themselves. Once a person sins, they need the blood of Christ to be saved. God has commanded that we obey Him by doing specific works to access that blood in order to be saved. (Romans 10:9-10; 2 Cor. 17:10; Romans 6; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 1:7)

Catholicism admits that humanity was created good, but fell through disobedience, and just like you referred to with the two testaments being a metaphor, we all manifest the exact same fall of Adam after we're born. The story is a metaphor for human nature, and our own inherent compulsion to disobey God, and our own higher nature. Transgression, by its very definition is sinful.

I reject the idea that "we all manifest the exact same fall of Adam after we're born". That is not taught in scripture.

Moreover, once one has elevated themselves to the higher self, or New Testament, the author of Hebrews points out that "there remains no more sacrifice for sin". Those sins committed under the Old Covenant are covered, but not under the New because there are no sins committed under the New Covenant. Hebrews 9:15;10:26

I absolutely reject this interpretation or that anyone today is under the Old Law. We are now getting into whether or not the OT has any authority today (which I reject) and that is a completely different conversation. I'm a Gentile with regard to the law of Moses and not amenable to that law to any extent. I am - as every other human being today - only amenable to the law of Christ, by which we CAN sin since it is also a spiritual law.

It's passed on the exact same way all sin is passed on; i.e. by transgressing God's commands. We are created to fulfill certain commands, yet everyone at some point in their development ceases from mirroring God, and begins to make ourselves master. Instead of abiding by God's will, we begin to follow our own will instead. Your comments show that you still believe in leaving it up to your own will rather than surrendering to God's mercy according to his sovereign will.

I do not agree that this is a foregone conclusion. I believe God created us with the capacity to live sinlessly. I believe in libertarian free will and in that since, yes, it is up to me to choose God in order to be saved.

It's a moot point because everyone has already sinned. Everyone has already succumbed to the temptation of believing that our own will and efforts can save us. Some even go so far as to believe that the will of their higher spiritual selves can save them. This seems to be your position.

I disagree that everyone has already sinned. This is not scriptural.

And the Mosaic law punishes other living organisms as well.

Example please.

Other species have moral capacities as well. When one of them violates those mores, they are shunned, or killed as well.

There is no Biblical evidence for this and certainly no physical evidence for it other than our own anthropromorphisms.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

The self doesn't actually exist to begin with. It's just an abstract construction of the mind. Once one becomes aware of this simple fact, the self(lower and higher) is obliterated. The problem has been cut at the root.

Now we are getting into New Age nonsense which I also reject out of hand.

And yet the Mosaic law does provide punishment for them. Paul points out that all of creation groans because of Adam's sin. So not only can they be condemned for their own sin, they're condemned because of Adam's, (and ours as well!) sin.

I do not believe the word "creation" here applies generically but to mankind under the Jewish system of law. It is the second heavens and earth of 2 Peter 3. Here is an article I wrote explaining how I understand this passage:

2 Peter 3

Much of this website has focused on the Old Testament to see what God has to say about the metaphorical use of the terms heaven and earth and some of the related topics (sun, moon, stars). Here I'd like to turn to one of the passages in the New Testament. How many people read 2 Peter 3 and...

swordmasterpublications.fandom.com

They do have the capacity, and when one crosses the line, they are attacked. Look at a bitch with her pups sometime, and you'll see that they get out of line quite frequently, and she immediately disciplines them. This behavior extends to the pack as a whole. This phenomenon is pervasive in numerous species, e.g. whales, dolphins, wolves, coyotes, etc. They all have standards of behavior that are acceptable, and standards that are unacceptable. That's the definition of morals.

No. Morals are right and wrong according to spiritual law which only humans have the capacity for as we are the only creation in the physical world with a spirit like God's (Gen. 1:26-27). You are anthropomorphizing and have no scriptural backing for this assertion.

Then I don't understand what point you were trying to make.

I recommend going back and rereading it with the beginning of the sentence in mind.

Jesus provides the way for reconciliation, but that revelation isn't immediately apparent to everyone simultaneously.

It's called the Bible.

We all have to discover it before we can receive it. If this weren't the case, no one would need to hear the gospel proclaimed to them in the first place because we would all already know it. This is what is prophetically pointed out by the prophets as well. There will come a time when no one will need to ask if you know Christ because everyone will know Christ.

Via the gospel which was indeed preached to the whole kosmos (Rom. 10:17-18).

There is no change if the lower nature isn't evil to begin with. This is your claim, no? You can't change the strips on a Zebra. No amount of will or effort can change tares into wheat, or wolves into sheep. There are lost sheep which can be found, but all lost wolves are destined to remain lost.

No. This is not my claim at all. The change is spiritual, not genetic. You don't understand me at all.

Christ actions display the way to reboot. No one is automatically rebooted. Just like you said before with the metaphor of the two testaments, the same holds true with regards to the fact that We are all created in God's image. The ability to reflect God is according to God's will while the ability to reflect the world is according to our will. God's will is the truth while our will is a false command. We automatically pass on corrupted code because we place our offspring into a corrupt world. It is impossible not to pass it on because the first thing we do is compel our sons and daughters to see themselves as separate from the world around them. No child is born that way. They are all born without any sense of self identity whatsoever. It must be taught, and it is taught. What does the bible tell us? It says that Christ is Emanuele or God with us, and that is what we as icons of God actually are.

I reject this entirely as it has no basis in scripture.

In Truth and Love.

 

[e v e]

The church of Christ teaches that sin is not hereditary either as a nature or in terms of guilt.

Sin is defined as transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4) whether this be the Law of the Garden (Genesis 2-3), the Patriarchal Law (Genesis 4-cross for non-Israelites), the Law of Moses (Exodus-cross for Israelites), or the Law of Christ (from the cross onward). To be guilty of sin, one must individually transgress God's Law.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Note here a few things.

First of all, the soul that sins shall die. That means the soul must first be alive. To teach hereditary sin one must conclude that the soul is conceived dead, that the person who is born is spiritually stillborn. A soul that is already dead cannot die. The idea that the soul that sins is a soul that dies implies that souls are conceived and born alive and then at some later point in life can sin and die spiritually. This alone destroys the idea of hereditary sin.

Second, the prophet by inspiration states that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father and that the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, not upon anyone else. This explicitly shows that neither the guilt or the nature of sin from the parent is transferred to the child.

While the consequences of sinful parents can affect generations (Ex. 20:5), this is not the guilt or the nature passing down.

Lastly, there is no verse in scripture that talks about a sinful nature or defines what that even means. Sin nature is an entirely extra-Biblical concept and so is rejected by the church of Christ. It must be further noted in this last point that the natures of men can and do change, so even if we were able to talk about what a sinful nature is from scripture, that alone is insufficient to demand the conclusion that such a nature is passed on from parent to child.

An example I like to give of this is in Romans 5. People who teach hereditary sin go here often to try and prove that sin is hereditary, but it actually shows the opposite. Grant for a moment that whatever Adam did changed the nature of all mankind to that of some kind of sinful, corrupted being inherently. Romans 5 says that whatever Adam did, Jesus undid. For those who are in Christ Jesus, our natures have been transformed again so that we are a new creature in Christ. Thus, any offspring Christians have will not have the nature of Adam...

...unless you want to argue that Adam's sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

In Truth and Love.

sin nature is this body .

it is not the one God gave adam.

if you are in one, that is sin nature.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

sin nature is this body .

it is not the one God gave adam.

if you are in one, that is sin nature.

Are you Gnostic?

 

[e v e]

Are you Gnostic?

no.

are you gnostic?

 

[4Him]

The church of Christ teaches that sin is not hereditary either as a nature or in terms of guilt.

The fact that children sin without being TAUGHT how to sin disproves that teaching.

BTW, knowing Proverbs 5:19 is in there doesn't shock me.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

The fact that children sin without being TAUGHT how to sin disproves that teaching.

I don't know what children you've been around, but no young child I've ever encountered has sinned or been capable of it.

Also, I prefer to discuss scripture on these topics, not our opinions of our personal observations of the world. The scriptures are truest and purest in terms of evidence.

BTW, knowing Proverbs 5:19 is in there doesn't shock me.

 

[4Him]

I don't know what children you've been around, but no young child I've ever encountered has sinned or been capable of it.

Then you haven't been around very many children. They can be selfish, envious, jealous and liars. You've never seen a child lie to their parents when asked if they did something they weren't supposed to do? Ever watch a child grab a toy from another child?

Also, I prefer to discuss scripture on these topics, not our opinions of our personal observations of the world.

By their fruit you shall know them. Our observations are critically important...so much so Jesus tells us as much.

The scriptures are truest and purest in terms of evidence.

Yet you seem to be oblivious of the fact that we judge by the fruit that is produced.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Then you haven't been around very many children. They can be selfish, envious, jealous and liars. You've never seen a child lie to their parents when asked if they did something they weren't supposed to do? Ever watch a child grab a toy from another child?


By their fruit you shall know them. Our observations are critically important...so much so Jesus tells us as much.


Yet you seem to be oblivious of the fact that we judge by the fruit that is produced.

If you cannot make your case from scripture, then I suggest the definitions you use for the above are not accurate definitions. I reject your opinions and only accept arguments from scripture.

 

[4Him]

If you cannot make your case from scripture, then I suggest the definitions you use for the above are not accurate definitions.

What definitions? I didn't define anything. But you have a nice way of dodging facts you don't want to deal with.
You can't refute anything I said because everything I said about children is 100% factual.

I reject your opinions and only accept arguments from scripture.

Then why did you say you don't want to discuss 'observations of the world' when that is exactly how we judge fruit?

Again, you apparently forgot Jesus said this.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

What definitions? I didn't define anything.

Context defines things as assuredly and effectively as an explicit definition.

The rest was deleted for irrelevance.

Please make an argument from scripture or I will accept that your failure to do so comes from inability to do so.

For example, in my OP I argued from Ezekiel 18:20 that sin is explicitly stated as something that does not pass from parent to child. I furthermore argued from Romans 5 that Christ undid whatever Adam did for those in Him so that the children of Christians could not possibly have inherited sin from purified parents. The only way - given for sake of argument that sin is hereditary because of Adam - would be if sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

Truth be told, you haven't addressed a single argument I made from scripture while at the same time accusing me of ignoring your non-scriptural arguments.

In Truth and Love.

 

[4Him]

Context defines things as assuredly and effectively as an explicit definition.

What did I define? It's not a hard question, yet you can't answer it.

The rest was deleted for irrelevance.

The only reason someone says that is because they can't refute what was posted and that is their way to doge it.

Please make an argument from scripture or I will accept that your failure to do so comes from inability to do so.

I made an argument you have no ability to refute. Children are selfish, jealous and envious, a fact you can't deal with....and they didn't need to be TAUGHT to be that way....they are that way because we are all born fallen, by nature, children of wrath.

For example, in my OP I argued from Ezekiel 18:20 that sin is explicitly stated as something that does not pass from parent to child.

An ACTUAL sin doesn't, but your fallen nature does.

I furthermore argued from Romans 5 that Christ undid whatever Adam did for those in Him so that the children of Christians could not possibly have inherited sin from purified parents.

Romans 5 doesn't say that. You still have a fallen nature, hence the reason you still sin. We battle against the FLESH....which is defined as our nature. Carnal vs. spiritual.

​

​ Original Word: σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: sarx Phonetic Spelling: (sarx) Definition: flesh Usage: flesh, body, human nature, materiality; kindred.

The only way - given for sake of argument that sin is hereditary because of Adam - would be if sin is greater than the blood of Christ.

Already addressed this.

Truth be told, you haven't addressed a single argument I made from scripture

I just did.

while at the same time accusing me of ignoring your non-scriptural arguments.

People ignore what they can't refute, just as you did.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

An ACTUAL sin doesn't, but your fallen nature does.

This is not taught in scripture.

Romans 5 doesn't say that.

Romans 5 says exactly that. It's the point Paul is making in the whole chapter.

v8 - while we were yet sinners - meaning we aren't now because Christ changed us
v9 - being now justified by his blood - meaning we weren't justified but now stand before God just according to the law of Christ
v10 - when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son - we were enemies, separated from God by sin (Isa. 59:2) but are now reconciled
v11 - we have now received the atonement - no actual atonement could be received before but in Christ full atonement is made and we have received it in Him
v18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. - whatever Adam did, Christ undid

Over and over the contrast is made so that those who are in Christ are justified, purified, no longer sinners, reconciled to God and in that we have all of this in Christ. We are a new creature (Romans 6:3-7) in Christ and thus, even if we grant a hereditary sin nature (which I do not actually grant), Christians don't have it to pass on to their children.

You still have a fallen nature, hence the reason you still sin. We battle against the FLESH....which is defined as our nature. Carnal vs. spiritual.

​

​ Original Word: σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: sarx Phonetic Spelling: (sarx) Definition: flesh Usage: flesh, body, human nature, materiality; kindred.

What you mean by the bolded human nature and what sarx refers to are two utterly different things. Human nature as you and your define it is this vile, corrupt, twisted, grotesque, spiritually diseased monster. That is not what sarx means. It simply means the physical, genetic, fleshly, matter, animalistic (that is, without regard to the human soul). It's what man would be if God had not installed that part of us which is in His image in Gen. 1:26-27. We'd be just another animal, alive, but with no eternal soul like God has. I absolutely reject your definition of human nature as it is not Biblical. And as all of your Calvinistic doctrines are based on this definition, I reject them as well wholesale.

You cannot make an argument from scripture and so you resort to a form of anthropomorphism against the most innocent of human life, our children, charging and sentencing them as an adult for things they can't even comprehend much less understand the consequences for.

I will give you one counter example without scripture and then I will be done with any argumentation that is not made from scripture.

An infant or toddler is not selfish when they cry for food or because their diaper is wet or because they are tired and they are not disobedient when you tell them to be quiet, quit crying, or go to sleep and they fail to do so. An infant can't even comprehend the language well enough to know what you are commanding so your command is unjust to begin with and so is your condemnation. A toddler, who barely understands words is not motivated by the adult motivations that lead to sin. They are motivated by the basic needs of life: food, attention, sleep, shelter, and curiosity to learn. A child cannot sin because they cannot transgress God's law. (Romans 7:9)

I will say no more about it unless we are discussing scripture.

 

[4Him]

This is not taught in scripture.

Yes, it is.

Romans 5 says exactly that. It's the point Paul is making in the whole chapter.

v8 - while we were yet sinners - meaning we aren't now because Christ changed us

Why did you skip verse 6?

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”

Christ changed THE UNGODLY. We are all born with fallen sinful natures, hence the reason we are all ungodly. We are BY NATURE, children of wrath.

v9 - being now justified by his blood - meaning we weren't justified but now stand before God just according to the law of Christ

No one argues this. We know what happens AFTER justification.

We are a new creature (Romans 6:3-7) in Christ and thus, even if we grant a hereditary sin nature (which I do not actually grant), Christians don't have it to pass on to their children.

That's not remotely scriptural. Regardless of whether one is born to Christian parents, they remain a descendant of Adam and still need saving.

What you mean by the bolded human nature and what sarx refers to are two utterly different things.

Except I gave you the definition as it is used in Romans 5.

Human nature as you and your define it is this vile, corrupt, twisted, grotesque, spiritually diseased monster. That is not what sarx means. It simply means the physical, genetic, fleshly, matter, animalistic (that is, without regard to the human soul).

It means human nature, and we are BY NATURE, children of wrath. Eph 2

You cannot make an argument from scripture and so you resort to a form of anthropomorphism against the most innocent of human life, our children, charging and sentencing them as an adult for things they can't even comprehend much less understand the consequences for.

I didn't charge them with anything.....I am stating a FACT that they are born fallen under Adam as we all are.

An infant or toddler is not selfish when they cry for food or because their diaper is wet or because they are tired and they are not disobedient when you tell them to be quiet, quit crying, or go to sleep and they fail to do so.

No one has made that argument, so you're debating yourself.

An infant can't even comprehend the language well enough to know what you are commanding so your command is unjust to begin with and so is your condemnation.

There was no demand or condemnation nor did I say a word about what is commanded of them. Pay attention.

A toddler, who barely understands words is not motivated by the adult motivations that lead to sin. They are motivated by the basic needs of life: food, attention, sleep, shelter, and curiosity to learn. A child cannot sin because they cannot transgress God's law. (Romans 7:9)

I will say no more about it unless we are discussing scripture.

You didn't discuss children from Scripture, I did. They are indeed selfish, jealous, greedy, liars....you don't have to TEACH a child to snatch a toy away from another child....that is selfishness and greed that motivate that behavior. They aren't TAUGHT that behavior. You don't have to TEACH a child to tell their parent no when told to do something. That is disobedience. That is their human nature....
We are BY NATURE, children of wrath. A fact you just don't want to deal with.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Yes, it is.

Rather than simply asserting such, you would move the conversation forward if you were to show where. Otherwise, it's coming across as negative attitude and obstinance which is not the spiritual fruits of Gal. 5.

Why did you skip verse 6?

I didn't skip verse 6 in any meaningful way. I was just showing a few examples from the context of my point, which was Christ transforming us from what we were before to what we are after. Such a transformation is complete and mutually exclusive so that whatever we were before cannot be passed on to our offspring. Verse 6 would have been redundant with what I said about verse 8, but if you want, you can include that in the list I gave to make the point.

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”

Christ changed THE UNGODLY.

Agreed. He took the sinner and made them saints. He took the ungodly and made them godly. And since the nature is changed, within the alleged hereditary sinful nature paradigm (which I'm only granting for the moment for the sake of argument to show the inconsistency of the position), the nature that is passed on from Christian parents to their offspring would be the transformed, reconciled, holy, godly nature, not the monstrous one...

...unless you believe that Adam's sin is stronger than Christ's blood.

We are all born with fallen sinful natures, hence the reason we are all ungodly. We are BY NATURE, children of wrath.

This is added to the concept of ungodly by you and is not found in scripture. We are ungodly because we sin. Paul writes in verse 12 that death passed to all men because all have sinned. We do not die because Adam sinned. We die because we sin. We are not guilty of Adam's sin and we do not inherit anything personally from him with regard to sin.

Furthermore, the phrase "were by nature children of wrath" comes from Eph. 2:3 which context does not teach that the Ephesian Christians were conceived as sinners but were by nature children of wrath because they walked "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience [the Jews]:" That walking is action, is obedience just as Paul wrote of in Romans 6:16. They had become children of wrath by nature through long, habitual obedience to sin, not by design. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that teaches that we are conceived with a sinful nature. You have to read that in to the context in every place.

No one argues this. We know what happens AFTER justification.


That's not remotely scriptural. Regardless of whether one is born to Christian parents, they remain a descendant of Adam and still need saving.

Then you believe that Adam's sin is more powerful than Christ's blood, that the transformation wrought by the blood of Christ is not complete or perfect so that there is something left of the monster to pass on to the children.

Except I gave you the definition as it is used in Romans 5.

No, you gave me your Calvinistic definition and then tried to apply it in Romans 5. There isn't any verse in Romans 5 that defines sarx as anything other than the physical matter, the mortal flesh of man. It's carbon bonded to oxygen, hydrogen, and a few other chemicals to form biological organisms. "Sinful nature" is not inherent in the word. To make it so is pure eisegesis.

It means human nature, and we are BY NATURE, children of wrath. Eph 2

And, as I have shown quite clearly from Romans 5, human nature is mutable, changeable. If it can be changed from ungodly to godly, it certainly can be changed from godly to ungodly as well. Ephesians 2 doesn't teach that the children of wrath nature was there by design or from birth, only that it was present through walking after Satan before they were saved. You are inserting the sinful from conception concept here.

I didn't charge them with anything.....I am stating a FACT that they are born fallen under Adam as we all are.

An assertion you have not shown to be true.

No one has made that argument, so you're debating yourself.

You are making the argument because you have asserted that children perform actions based on a certain motivation (sinful nature). If you are giving up that proposition, then fine, I accept the concession.

There was no demand or condemnation nor did I say a word about what is commanded of them. Pay attention.

Your attitude is reaching a point where I am losing interest in discussing this with you. Telling me to "pay attention" is condescending. Continue it, and I will simply no longer reply to your posts. I cannot ignore you wholly since you are a moderator, but I don't have to engage with you as a poster. edit personal comments.

You are accusing children of sin by the way they behave. I applied your statement to a specific instance which I've heard Calvinists make before. You have accused infants of sinful behavior and I'm showing that this cannot be the case. Sin requires knowledge and understanding, neither of which an infant has.

You didn't discuss children from Scripture, I did.

Which scripture did you use to reference children? Certainly not Eph. 2 or Romans 5 since both of those audiences are adult and Paul addresses "you" and "we" not "children" or "a child". In fact, Romans 7:9 shows that children are innocent until they can understand God's law.

The rest was deleted for lack of scriptural context.

 

[4Him]

Rather than simply asserting such, you would move the conversation forward if you were to show where. Otherwise, it's coming across as negative attitude and obstinance which is not the spiritual fruits of Gal. 5.

Maybe you should have read the entire post before posting something so ridiculous.

I didn't skip verse 6 in any meaningful way.

Of course you did.

I was just showing a few examples from the context of my point, which was Christ transforming us from what we were before to what we are after.

Then you are arguing with yourself, because no one denies Christ transforms us....and the reason is because we are born fallen under Adam and all are in need of a Savior. ALL.

Agreed. He took the sinner and made them saints. He took the ungodly and made them godly. And since the nature is changed, within the alleged hereditary sinful nature paradigm (which I'm only granting for the moment for the sake of argument to show the inconsistency of the position), the nature that is passed on from Christian parents to their offspring would be the transformed, reconciled, holy, godly nature, not the monstrous one...

...unless you believe that Adam's sin is stronger than Christ's blood.

Our NATURE is not changed, our HEARTS are. There will always be a battle between the flesh (our fallen nature) and the Spiritual. God has taken hearts of stone and given hearts of flesh.

5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh....

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

This is added to the concept of ungodly by you and is not found in scripture.

Then you are ignorant of Scripture....

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

We are ungodly because we sin.

No, we sin because we are ungodly.

Paul writes in verse 12 that death passed to all men because all have sinned. We do not die because Adam sinned. We die because we sin.

Yet you just said children cant sin....so why do they die?

We are not guilty of Adam's sin and we do not inherit anything personally from him with regard to sin.

We are born fallen under Adam, FACT. Hence the reason for the second Adam.

Furthermore, the phrase "were by nature children of wrath" comes from Eph. 2:3 which context does not teach that the Ephesian Christians were conceived as sinners but were by nature children of wrath because they walked "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience [the Jews]:" That walking is action, is obedience just as Paul wrote of in Romans 6:16. They had become children of wrath by nature through long, habitual obedience to sin, not by design. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that teaches that we are conceived with a sinful nature. You have to read that in to the context in every place.

No, they were children of wrath, because we are born that way....dead in trespasses and sin. Hence the need to be REBORN.

Then you believe that Adam's sin is more powerful than Christ's blood,

No, nor did I even imply that. Pay attention and lose the embellishment.

No, you gave me your Calvinistic definition and then tried to apply it in Romans 5. There isn't any verse in Romans 5 that defines sarx as anything other than the physical matter, the mortal flesh of man.

I gave you the Greek meaning and you refuse to see what's right in front of you. It refers to our NATURE, not our physical flesh. Your physical flesh can't make you do anything, it is your NATURE that does. We battle against the flesh, ( our NATURE ), not our physical flesh.

Romans 5 affirms this.... 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

It's carbon bonded to oxygen, hydrogen, and a few other chemicals to form biological organisms. "Sinful nature" is not inherent in the word.

Yet that's how it's used. It has nothing to do with your physical flesh, but your nature....what is INSIDE, not outside.
If he's referring to physical flesh, Romans 5 makes no sense.

And, as I have shown quite clearly from Romans 5, human nature is mutable, changeable.

Your nature is your nature.....God changes our hearts as shown throughout Scripture, nothing in scripture says he changes our nature.


“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

If it can be changed from ungodly to godly, it certainly can be changed from godly to ungodly as well. Ephesians 2 doesn't teach that the children of wrath nature was there by design or from birth, only that it was present through walking after Satan before they were saved. You are inserting the sinful from conception concept here.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We are born fallen, that includes children.

An assertion you have not shown to be true.

Except I have. You haven't shown it to be false, because you can't.

You are making the argument

No, I haven't. You are embellishing because you can't deal with the facts posted.

because you have asserted that children perform actions based on a certain motivation (sinful nature).

And I am correct....unless you are going to suggest that parents TEACH their children to be selfish, greedy and liars.

If you are giving up that proposition, then fine, I accept the concession.

Why would I concede some ridiculous claim you made up in order to avoid dealing with reality.

Your attitude is reaching a point where I am losing interest in discussing this with you.

That's something someone losing an argument says.

Telling me to "pay attention" is condescending. Continue it, and I will simply no longer reply to your posts.

I couldn't care less if you do or not. I don't reply to you just to get a response back, I reply for the lurkers to see the truth.

You are accusing children of sin by the way they behave.

Because children sin and they don't need to be TAUGHT to sin. You think they are taught to covet?

I applied your statement to a specific instance which I've heard Calvinists make before. You have accused infants of sinful behavior and I'm showing that this cannot be the case. Sin requires knowledge and understanding, neither of which an infant has.

Yet they know enough to lie to their parents when asked if they did something. Or are you going to suggest parents teach their children to lie? They know enough to be selfish and greedy and snatch a toy from another child. Or are you suggesting their parents teach them this?

Which scripture did you use to reference children? Certainly not Eph. 2 or Romans 5 since both of those audiences are adult and Paul addresses "you" and "we" not "children" or "a child".

Except that you and we were once children and still needed a changed heart. There's a reason we are ALL in need of rebirth.

In fact, Romans 7:9 shows that children are innocent until they can understand God's law.

You just said children born to Christian parents are changed, and Christians are not under the law by under grace.
You are all over the place with your contradictory beliefs.

The rest was deleted for lack of scriptural context.

Then you should delete most of your posts.