Do we Inherit sin?

[gdemoss]

The main question that I need you to answer for me in order for me to see things from your perspective is "since we were all in Adam when Adam sinned, how could we have been unaffected by sin when Adam sinned?".

 

First off, we are not unaffected by Adam sinning (we most certainly have been effected) we just are not held accountable for his sin only for our own.

 

 

Please explain this question in light of the scriptures from Hebrews that credit Levi with tithes paid in Abraham.

 

Hbr 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Hbr 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Hbr 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Hbr 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

 

 

Yes this is figurative language. The tithes Abraham paid to Melchizedek value Levi in no way. Levi also did not literally pay tithes in Abraham (as even  his grandson Jacob had not been born yet). Yes we were in Adam’s loins when Adam sinned, so figuratively speaking we also sinned but to say actually participated in his sin or that we are guilty and judgment worthy in Adam before we are born, would contradict other scriptures like Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18, and God is not the author of confusion…

 

A basic hermeneutic I follow is that if it appears that two scriptures speaking about the same thing appear to contradict one another it is my understanding that is incorrect not the scriptures. Therefore in light of Hebrews its meaning must include the understanding that children are not judged for the sins of the fathers (which would therefore include Adam). That we are only found guilty and condemned for our own sins not Adam’s (the soul that sins it must die), because to hold that “genetically guilty” view means these other passages are in error and that simply cannot be!

 

I hope this helped you understand my view better…

 

In His love

Paul‘

Gene?  Close, it's Gary  

 

While I agree with you on the hermeneutic that when there appears a contradiction that our understanding is wrong, there is a lot of room for understanding just where the error can lie.  And this is where it becomes confusing.  God is not the author of confusion as you say, yet we are often confused and offering confusion to one another, wonderful isn't it?  Is it possible that there could be error in your understanding of Ezekiel 18?  As we bridge out across the scriptures seeking the truth of the matter at hand, we will find that our subjective views of the objective truth we read causes us to conclude many various things from the same text.  Unfortunately, God did not give a standardized layout explaining which parts he meant to be figurative versus those which are to be taken literally.  Lots of room for error then.  What you see as figurative, I see as literal.  That puts us in a pickle!   And it only gets worse as we ease on into Ezekiel and begin to as questions concerning that which is written there or the lateral Jer 31 (I think?) that speaks of the same thing, and begin to determine just what is being said there so that we can come to an understanding of whether we are even dealing with the same concept or not.  Oh my... If God were here in a physical manifestation, he could and probably would clear this up in short order but he is not.  

 

And it is for this cause that I have dedicated myself to seeking a perfect understanding of what it means to love my neighbor as myself and live accordingly by the power of the Spirit.  My time here at Worthy has been very worthwhile to me.  I have learned the need for sympathy, empathy and compassion in dealing with biblical things.  I also learned that I am not all fixed up but still learning to live broken as sin has not given up seeking to rule over me.  Foundation, foundation, foundation, we build on our foundations.  I get why you are where you are and was once there but now I am over here looking back over there and shaking my head saying "yup, I get it".

 

Your awesome brother, keep loving, keep growing, at least we agree on one thing....we have all sinned and need a savior.  Peace.

[gdemoss]

 

The main question that I need you to answer for me in order for me to see things from your perspective is "since we were all in Adam when Adam sinned, how could we have been unaffected by sin when Adam sinned?".

 

First off, we are not unaffected by Adam sinning (we most certainly have been effected) we just are not held accountable for his sin only for our own.

 

 

Please explain this question in light of the scriptures from Hebrews that credit Levi with tithes paid in Abraham.

 

Hbr 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Hbr 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Hbr 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Hbr 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

 

 

Yes this is figurative language. The tithes Abraham paid to Melchizedek value Levi in no way. Levi also did not literally pay tithes in Abraham (as even  his grandson Jacob had not been born yet). Yes we were in Adam’s loins when Adam sinned, so figuratively speaking we also sinned but to say actually participated in his sin or that we are guilty and judgment worthy in Adam before we are born, would contradict other scriptures like Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18, and God is not the author of confusion…

 

A basic hermeneutic I follow is that if it appears that two scriptures speaking about the same thing appear to contradict one another it is my understanding that is incorrect not the scriptures. Therefore in light of Hebrews its meaning must include the understanding that children are not judged for the sins of the fathers (which would therefore include Adam). That we are only found guilty and condemned for our own sins not Adam’s (the soul that sins it must die), because to hold that “genetically guilty” view means these other passages are in error and that simply cannot be!

 

I hope this helped you understand my view better…

 

In His love

Paul‘

Gene?  Close, it's Gary

 

While I agree with you on the hermeneutic that when there appears a contradiction that our understanding is wrong, there is a lot of room for understanding just where the error can lie.  And this is where it becomes confusing.  God is not the author of confusion as you say, yet we are often confused and offering confusion to one another, wonderful isn't it?  Is it possible that there could be error in your understanding of Ezekiel 18?  As we bridge out across the scriptures seeking the truth of the matter at hand, we will find that our subjective views of the objective truth we read causes us to conclude many various things from the same text.  Unfortunately, God did not give a standardized layout explaining which parts he meant to be figurative versus those which are to be taken literally.  Lots of room for error then.  What you see as figurative, I see as literal.  That puts us in a pickle!   And it only gets worse as we ease on into Ezekiel and begin to as questions concerning that which is written there or the lateral Jer 31 (I think?) that speaks of the same thing, and begin to determine just what is being said there so that we can come to an understanding of whether we are even dealing with the same concept or not.  Oh my... If God were here in a physical manifestation, he could and probably would clear this up in short order but he is not.  

 

And it is for this cause that I have dedicated myself to seeking a perfect understanding of what it means to love my neighbor as myself and live accordingly by the power of the Spirit.  My time here at Worthy has been very worthwhile to me.  I have learned the need for sympathy, empathy and compassion in dealing with biblical things.  I also learned that I am not all fixed up but still learning to live broken as sin has not given up seeking to rule over me.  Foundation, foundation, foundation, we build on our foundations.  I get why you are where you are and was once there but now I am over here looking back over there and shaking my head saying "yup, I get it".

 

Your awesome brother, keep loving, keep growing, at least we agree on one thing....we have all sinned and need a savior.  Peace.

 

 

Sorry Gary...for the name thing..but your explanation of where the differences of understanding and disagreements come from is noted. Take the Lord's Supper...the Catholics take these as literal and the Baptists as allegorical...this makes a huge difference...but I guess my point was, God cannot both hold the sins of the fathers against the children, and NOT hold the sins of the fathers against the children, as that would be a self contradiction which God is not...

 

The doctrine that we do is derived through interpretation based on ones hermeneutic which applies meaning, the doctrine doctrine that says we do not is a literal hermeneutic...but when He appears we shall be like Him and we shall know even as we are known...it will be good to meet you brother...

 

Brother Paul

Good call on the Lords Supper.  It is an excellent example.  I want to note here that you state that "God cannot both hold the sins of the fathers against the children, and NOT hold the sins of the fathers against the children" and encourage you to consider that Deut 24 and Ezekiel 18 are taken from the law of Moses which was given due to transgressions and govern temporal life for offenses worthy of death according to the law.  They do not apply to our eventual physical death that we secured in Adam when we sinned in him when 'man' was yet whole outside of Eve who also sinned.  

 

The law came by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.  

 

My hermeneutics that govern my interpretation are founded on this sole principle of interpreting law.  Because righteousness is not defined by the law nor can it be, but by the person of Jesus Christ alone, my foundation of interpretation begins with the question 'who is Jesus?'. Here is where I find the application of the letter kills but the spirit gives life and out of that I grow my understanding of texts such as Deut 24.  It is a difficult to understand concept as Peter spoke of many of Paul's writings which is easily twisted and misinterpreted with the aid of the Evil One and his minions who seek to lead us astray from truth which gives life.

 

How I see Jesus:

Jesus when upon the earth was a selfless God-centered human being driven by the divine nature.  He was unaffected by Adam's sin, the eyes of his understanding never having been opened, therefore he only heard from God from the inside and did exactly as he received from the Father.  Satan was stuck outside trying to get in but could not breach the Lord.  Jesus could not deny himself.  He was bulletproof.  I do not believe that it was possible for Jesus to have an opinion contrary to the Father as we can due to the fall.  I do not believe he can disagree as he is the express image of the Father.  Righteousness is defined by his person.  As a human one is righteous when they are selfless God-centered living in the divine nature through the Holy Spirit.

 

How I see the law:

The law is a collection of carnal commandments given unto men for the purpose of teaching them about their selfish and self-centered sinful condition that was inherited in the fall when Adam sinned for the purpose of leading them to Christ that they might cry out unto God and experience the new birth while obtaining forgiveness.

 

Therefore I see sin and the sin nature as being one in the same.  Paul said that when I would to do good evil is present with me and I personally hold to the position that that evil has been with me contaminating my flesh since conception and therefore it is appointed for man once to die and then the judgment.  The first death having nothing to do with final judgment but everything to do with Deut 24 and Ezekiel 18 as they pertain to the people of God who know not God.  

 

A man picking up sticks on the Sabbath was stoned to death by order from God's throne.  David was said to be innocent by Jesus when he ate the show bread which was not lawful for him to eat according to Moses.  So it is obvious to me that sin is known by the spirit and not the letter of the law and a man is to die for his own sin physically when he has truly broken God's law through selfish and self-centered action that is iniquitous and his iniquity need not be imputed to his offspring.

 

But my core belief about inheriting sin comes from the simplicity of sin being in the flesh, all flesh but the pure body of Christ which was sacrificed upon Calvary for our sin and that we might become his body.  And that sin is the evil that is in each of us from birth that causes us to be self aware and thus selfish and self-centered by nature.  Sin and the sin nature being synonymous.  The virgin birth being necessary for the purpose of Christ having a sinless human body and his soul (life) being given that we might live.

 

Consider 1 John 1.  We have been instructed by our church leaders on how to interpret the passage in accordance with the various core doctrines that the church holds which is all well and good if those core doctrines are absolutely true.  I disagree.  When I see 1 John 1, I see the debate that is going on in this thread plainly stated:

 

•  1Jo 1:5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
• Verse 5 declares that the following is 'the message' and the following 5 verses declare 'conditions' of the message through 'if' statements.
•  
• 1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
• To have fellowship with light we must walk in light being God-centered or we are not doing that which is true.
•  
• 1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
• Walking in the light is proof of our faith in him as faith without works is dead.
•  
• 1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
• Here is the verse that I see that speaks of sin being in our flesh from birth as there is no reason to restate in verse 10 the same thing over again.
•  
• 1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
• Having a sin nature which is having indwelling sin with us in our bodies produces sin that needs confession when it is understood.
•  
• 1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
• And to claim to have denied indwelling sin makes one a liar as there is not a man upon the earth who has ever been able to deny sin working from the inside out instead of the outside in.

Those last three sum up my position.  Evil has been present with me from birth guaranteeing my death.  I have obeyed that internal evil and need to repent and confess.  No one has ever denied indwelling sin which is inherited from our father not our mother.  We are not born eternally condemned but rather temporally condemned to physical death.

 

That is what I see concerning such matters.  If I am incorrect in my assessment, the Lord forgive and teach me that I may be true in my doctrinal positions.  If I be right then the Lord help others to see the truth.  Either way let us each love the other as the Lord has loved us.  Peace.

[enoob57]

 

 

No, I am not responsible for my dad’s, brothers or sisters sins much less Adam’s. This original sin (total depravity) started with the Gnostics. Gnostics believed nothing good could come from the flesh and certainly Jesus could not be God as He was in the flesh. 1,2 & 3^rd John deals with a lot of Gnostic problems in John’s time. Augustine (Catholic Priest) followed the Gnostic writings (beliefs) and the Protestant pope (John Calvin) did the same. Most of your Protestant groups follow Pope John Calvin.

Do you know anything of Augustine? Have you read "On the City of God"?

You were born into sin, call it original, or sin nature, but it is scriptural, and it is against scripture to teach otherwise.

 

Original Sin is different than sin nature. Original Sin deals with Adam's sin. Sin nature is the inclination we have towards sin from that Original Sin. I prefer the Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin it is not attached to Augustine and is much more precise in what scripture seems to indicate. 

 

Also the answer of why did Christ come. To destroy death and sin which was holding creation hostage. He trampled down death with death.

 

This division is not supported by Scripture

Gal 5:7-10

7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you.

9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind;

but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is

NKJV

It is of one essence and is slotted in one place hell... Love, Steven

[CAP73]

No.

[enoob57]

So Steven...you are drawing the distinction and yet seeing us a being both simultaneously...very interesting...I will watch and see where this goes.

 

Brother Paul

 

I see the distinction of what I was and what I am by the power of God! I could not be where I am by my own previous resources for my propensity to sin

was established before conscious was developed within me to choose sin... I believe the demand for self to be the sin nature and the essence of sin!

Truly one who is given over to God is set free from self- as it is to be reckoned dead but alive to God thus that which is temporary is brought into subjection

to that which does not end!  We have been born into the temporary but the born again have been born into the everlasting; hence the war shall I consider

the that which ends, a value set forth in The Will and Heart of God, over that which God considers endless value essenced  in His Own Eternities and Word

of Promise? The definite need of faith is to believe on what is recorded of God against all else... 

 

The Gulf that is fixed between good and evil:

Simply God will not encase Himself in definition by idea of self but with Name 'I AM that I AM' renders the proclamation His Being without bounds-> The Only

Eternal Essence without self regard (for) there 'IS' no other to necessitate the regard! We are halted by beginning but we are transformed by Grace to enter into

God with God and as the cross of our Lord teaches the narrowness of this path and the difficulty of the way- no the impossibility- that it presents to those not fully

dead to self resource and fully alive to God...   Love, Steven