Do we Inherit sin?

[gdemoss]

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

King James Version (KJV)

1 And I, brethren (Spirit born family of God), could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. ² I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. ³ For ye are yet carnal (carnal brethren): for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Are these Christian people at enmity against God or are they His children? Yes the carnal "mind" is enmity against God because it chooses to do what is right in its own eyes, but babies do not dwell on or seek fleshly lusts, but are as God made them to be and are a heritage from the Lord. Are they yet matured knowing right from wrong? Blessed is the man whose quiver is full (full of devils?). If you want to enter the Kingdom of God you must become as a little child (innocent, trusting, believing without doubt), whose angels always behold the face of our Father (you mean their evil spirits?).

You were not born incapable of being subject to God's law or His command and expectation of obedience and promise of reward for such obedience would be hogwash! You chose sin AFTER you knew the difference between right and wrong, just like Adam (just as I did).

To say we had no choice but to be evil is to say God has determined His heritage to be evil and the evil that we did was His predetermined will for us. God then is the one who tempts and the maker of sin, sinners, and the sins we will commit. But the scripture says God tempts no man, and He is not the maker of sinners (Satan introduced sin), If He were and they sinned the sins that He made them to sin, then in actuality they would be doing nothing but God's will for them (irresistibly), and would be without personal responsibility for those sins. But the OP is DO WE INHERIT SIN not are we born with a sinful nature that one day undoubtedly will sin. As to the OP the answer from the word is no we do not.

As for these new born "babes in Christ" they are saved (born of His Spirit) are they not? Though they still may not have yet fully matured.

Brother Paul

Understandable why you perceive it as such. Your leaving out the dual nature.

[Guest shiloh357]

We inherited a sin nature. We did not inherit sin. We did not inherit Adam's guilt. You are accountable for your own sins, not the sin of Adam. Adam passed on to us a sinful nature that is bent toward sin. Nowhere does the Bible say we inherited sin(s).

[back2thebible]

we are born with a sin nature, and all babies that die go to heaven, It may be the best blessing of their lives

[Willa]

be aware

This type of post makes you sound as cryptic as the gnostics

[enoob57]

be aware

This type of post makes you sound as cryptic as the gnostics I know it really fries me too!

[gdemoss]

 

 

So what passage and verse is this final quotation? please find it in the Bible for us? The rest of these do not say he was born in or we inherited sin (just a nature that will eventually sin)...we are not born dead in Adam but in Adam all will die (unless we die in Christ before we physically die so we can escape our inevitable second death at the judgment seat) because all will sin...

 

But Paul however also does say (conveniently excluded)

 

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment…

Romans 7:11 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment …

 

For what is sin? 

 

1 John 3:4…but transgression of the law…

 

And Paul also tells us that before the command came there was no transgression...babies do not understand any commandments and neither have they been told them

 

Hmmm? How come this is left out...

 

The problem here is, when we select a string of scriptures without the complete picture, we can make them say all sorts of incomplete and sometimes incorrect things which sometimes leads to erroneous conclusions. This last quotation seems to be YOU...

 

In His love '

 

Brother Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Have you ever studied the 1 John 3 verse to inquire what word was translated "transression of the law" in it versus how the same word was translated through out the rest of the NT?  I can see why you conclude what you do based upon the given English translation you provided.  I encourage you to do some deeper research if you have not already done so.  And if you have, then I would love to hear your explanation as to why that particular occurrence of the word is better translated by that phrase rather than the simple straight forward single word used everywhere else.

 

You are so right about erroneous conclusions based upon incomplete or incorrect things.  I had to learn the hard way that I can always, even in this case, be wrong.  Humility or humiliation, we must choose.  We can have one or the other but not both.  At any given time, you or I can only develop our understanding based upon the knowledge that we have combined with our ability to process that knowledge correctly.  My main problem is that when I would to do good evil is present with me.  It is in my flesh.

 

The problem I have with your understanding begins with the definition of an acceptable sacrifice.  I understand that the only reason Jesus' could be my sacrifice at the hands of the Roman soldiers was that he was without sin.  That being true then all I need to do is to sacrifice a child before they sin and I have a perfect sinless sacrifice and do not need Jesus.  

 

The virgin birth was necessary.

 

My understanding is rooted in my study of underlying biblical principle.  I must admit that as I grow in understanding, my positions tend to shift a bit to more tightly align with a cohesive message that underlies all of scripture, which is the gospel.  Today I know and understand more than ever that I have a subjective understanding which is based on limited knowledge and possibly skewed by sin of an objective reality.  

 

My present conclusion is that I cannot believe in a God whose plan is so faulty that any man could sacrifice his newborn child who has not yet sinned so that he could have a free pass to eternal life.  I welcome any input that you might have to give that would provide a solution to the problem you have presented as truth so that I can see my error.

[gdemoss]

As I ponder the 'nature' of the debate here, I have to ask, what is at stake?  What doctrinal shift takes place when we choose either side of the debate?  

 

If sin is inherited, what major doctrinal positions must be changed?

 

If only a sin nature is inherited, what major doctrinal positions must be changed?  If any in either case?

 

For me the truth lies in Genesis.  When God spoke to Cain about Sin, he personified Sin.  We ask the question "What is sin?" and many are quick to fully define sin based upon the verse given in 1 John, which is understandable because it 'appears' to give a simple definition of sin for us.  

 

I ask that you consider for a moment if there is a connection between two concepts concerning sin.

1. Sin is personified by God and said to want to have dominion (to be god) over Cain.
2. Satan is said to be the god of this world and therefore has dominion over those who obey him.

If you accept this as plausible then understanding what is meant when the scriptures tell us that there is a spirit that works in the children of disobedience becomes clear.  The prince of the power of the air.  The Devil.  That old Serpent.  Beelzebub.  Sin.  The Evil One.  And on.  And on.

 

Don't think this fits?  How many names for Jesus?  Wonderful.  Counsellor.  Friend.  Prince of Peace.  Lord.  Savior.  Christ.  And on.  And on.

 

I wasn't born with the Holy Spirit.

 

I was tainted by sin while yet in my fathers loins before I ever had a body.

 

I was never without sin.

 

Have you considered that Levi was credited with paying tithes in Abraham because he was in his loins? <--that made me think.

 

I was 'part of' Adam when he sinned.

 

Thank God.

 

I inherited Sin.

 

I inherited Eternal Life.

 

I really didn't have to work for either.

 

God is good.  God is love.

 

I reserve the right to be wrong and therefore respect yours also.  The eyes of our understanding were opened but not fully enlightened.  

[gdemoss]

Thanks for the discussion.  I have decided to withdraw due to time management.  There are better things to pursue with my time for God.  Have a good day.

[enoob57]

 

 

 

gdemoss...

James 1:15 says “…when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin…”> I may be wrong gdemoss, but it seemed as if you were using this to show Psalm 51:5 may support babies being born condemnable sinners. This passage has no relation to this subject whatsoever. A careful exegesis of the wording reveals that when “epithymia” has conceived, rendered “lust” in the old English. But this word means “desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden”. Thuis this cannot be related to sex between married people because it is not forbidden but in fact a blessing (the first command with a blessing given by God Himself in Genesis 1). Married people may conceive during moments of lust but that does not demonstrate an effect on their offspring. The word for sin here (hamartia) means to miss the mark, or wander from the path of uprightness, or to go and do wrong. So what James says here (not related to the OP) is that acting from our desire or craving causes US to wander from the path God has set and leads US to sin.

In His love

Paul

Bless you Paul, but you missed the point. What I said holds true.

 

I thought I must have...so what is it if you would be so kind as making it simple for me...I thought you were saying you were born a condemable sinner. Thanks Bro

Brother Paul

 

According to scripture, I was born without the capability to be subject unto Gods law making me his mortal enemy and for this cause it was appointed once for me to die and then the judgment. It isn't a matter of if I sinned as that was a gaurentee. Sin is the transgression of the law (iniquity) and it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin, only for sin to be imputed.

 

Rom 7:7-12

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."  8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.  12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

NKJV Love, Steven

[gdemoss]

I said " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin"

 

And Romans 7:7-14 was quoted.  Why?  It does not address what I said.

 

According to Romans 7 Paul said he would not have known sin except by the law but even without Paul's understanding of that which he did being sin, the sin he did was still sin.  Sin is sin even without the law.  It simply does not have the power it gets from the law.

 

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

The law is not necessary unless you want to show the unrighteous that they are unrighteous for even the scriptures teach us that the law was given due to the multitude of transgressions to show them their error.

 

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

Sin is sin even without the law, therefore  it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin.