# How is original sin passed on?



## JM (Aug 28, 2007)

I was recently asked the following question and didn't know how to respond:



> Did Christ Jesus inherit a hereditary "depraved nature" from Mary? [Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 4:15]



Any ideas on how to respond?

Thanks,

j


----------



## raderag (Aug 28, 2007)

JM said:


> I was recently asked the following question and didn't know how to respond:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's imputed to us just as Christ's righteousness is imputed.



> Romans 5:12Therefore, just as(T) sin came into the world through one man, and(U) death through sin, and(V) so death spread to all men because(W) all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but(X) sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not(Y) like the transgression of Adam,(Z) who was a type of(AA) the one who was to come.
> 
> 15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for(AB) many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For(AC) the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought(AD) justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness(AE) reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 28, 2007)

original sin is conveyed by "natural generation" (WLC #26) therefore since Christ was not "naturally" generated original sin was not conveyed to Him.


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 28, 2007)

It's imputed to us just as Christ's righteousness is imputed.

This may not be right. Sin is passed through birth, it is inherent/ontological in men where imputed righteousness is seen more of a forensic outer declaration.


----------



## JM (Aug 28, 2007)

At which point does traducianism vs. creationism come into this discussion?


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

larryjf said:


> original sin is conveyed by "natural generation" (WLC #26) therefore since Christ was not "naturally" generated original sin was not conveyed to Him.



Larry, you're correct but I believe we have to go one step beyond citing natural generation. We must specifically cite the sin of Adam as the inception of original sin. 

It's interesting that this thread exists because Romans 5 was what I preached on this past Lord's day.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > original sin is conveyed by "natural generation" (WLC #26) therefore since Christ was not "naturally" generated original sin was not conveyed to Him.
> ...



Jesus was not under the Federal Headship of Adam and, therefore, did not receive the sin nature mentioned in Romans 5. Jesus is the Head of a different race - the elect.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

joshua said:


> Like I said...



Yeah, I probably could have just quoted you!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2007)

Let me throw in a few thoughts. Adam in his original created status probably was able to exercise a dominion because of his personal authority and physical power over creation. He could probably do miraculous things as did the prophets and the apostles. He also could probably see things in the Spiritual realm that we are closed off from seeing now. 

When Adam sinned something died the day he violated the Covenant of Works. His eyes were opened in one way but blinded in another. His physical appearance probably changed. As Moses Face shown from the Glory of the Lord, Adams face probably held a countenance that reflected the same Glory. But when Sin entered in the glory left and the powers probably died and his image was broken. His nakedness took on a different meaning because the glory was gone probably. And his genetics were probably altered due to this death of dying. He no longer held dominion of he creation in his power as it was gone from him. 

(Heb 2:6) But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

(Heb 2:7) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

(Heb 2:8) Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

So now this broken and spiritually dead soul can only give birth to his fallen likeness.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

Strictly speaking, Original Sin, being first of all the *guilt* of Adam's first sin, plus "the want {lack, absence} of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature" (WSC 18), is _imputed_ to all his ordinarily generated offspring. So, legally it was God's WILL to pass by such imputation to Christ, seeing as Jesus was not born by ordinary generation.

The corruption of Adam's whole nature includes, then, his passing along to his offspring a corrupted constitution in every area, both moral, intellectual, and physical. Like begets like. And in the absence of any positive righteousness to pass on, there is no inherent possiblity of fixing that which is ruined.

There is a creation/traducian element here, but as I understand the problem, the issue is primarily one for the traducian, which sees transmission of "soul" as a product of human generation. One usual traducian response seeks to overcome the difficulty by positing the Male seed as the instrument of transmission, and since Jesus did not have a human father, he bypasses the naturally passed-along taint.

I don't know if that suggestion (that the Male is basically exclusively responsible for passing along an "evil" nature) is really the best way of thinking about the problem. Do we really want to say the woman's contribution to our constitution is "neutral", and our fathers make us evil? To me, that is much too facile an explanation.

So, how does Jesus escape a sin-taint from Mary? Jesus gets a _physical_ body from Mary. And it is a body just like ours. It is succeptible to natural weakness, and failure. It dies. In other words, Jesus assumed a fallen, human BODY. This does not make _Jesus_ fallen, however. But his human soul, whatever its origin, not having the guilt of Adam's first sin _imputed_ {legally charged} against it, possessed instead Original Righteousness.

Jesus did not come into the world to have physical children, so it is pointless to wonder if his physical children would have been physically corrupt. He didn't come to do that, so he didn't have any (no matter what Mr. Brown says). But his spiritual children are innumerable. Their souls are regenerated, which proves God can change a soul from evil to good by a simple work. And if he can do that, then he can also _prevent_ a soul (if Jesus human soul came purely from his human mother, and was not immediately created by God) from an initial state of corruption even when it is formed by fallen human agency, so that it begins instantly in a condition fit for Original Righteousness.


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

> Jesus did not come into the world to have physical children, so it is pointless to wonder if his physical children would have been physically corrupt. He didn't come to do that, so he didn't have any (no matter what Mr. Brown says).



Bruce - by "Mr. Brown" I take it you mean Dan Brown, author of the DaVinci Code?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

Bill! Now everyone will know your middle name! tsk tsk
I call that a shamless plug.


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bill! Now everyone will know your middle name! tsk tsk
> I call that a shamless plug.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 29, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, how does Jesus escape a sin-taint from Mary? Jesus gets a _physical_ body from Mary. And it is a body just like ours. It is succeptible to natural weakness, and failure. It dies. In other words, Jesus assumed a fallen, human BODY. This does not make _Jesus_ fallen, however. But his human soul, whatever its origin, not having the guilt of Adam's first sin _imputed_ {legally charged} against it, possessed instead Original Righteousness.



So you believe only the human body of Jesus is from Mary, not His human nature?
It is my belief that the human nature (including His body) of Christ came from Mary. And that from conception it was connected to His God-nature.


----------



## Herald (Aug 29, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > So, how does Jesus escape a sin-taint from Mary? Jesus gets a _physical_ body from Mary. And it is a body just like ours. It is succeptible to natural weakness, and failure. It dies. In other words, Jesus assumed a fallen, human BODY. This does not make _Jesus_ fallen, however. But his human soul, whatever its origin, not having the guilt of Adam's first sin _imputed_ {legally charged} against it, possessed instead Original Righteousness.
> ...



Larry - how are you defining "human nature?" Would you consider human nature to be the immaterial or spiritual state of man?


----------



## larryjf (Aug 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Larry - how are you defining "human nature?" Would you consider human nature to be the immaterial or spiritual state of man?



I would say that human nature is body and soul.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 29, 2007)

John Murray has an excellent book discussing this. Its titled The Imputation of Adam's Sin. If you can find it get it! Its one of Murray's better books.


----------



## Herald (Aug 29, 2007)

larryjf said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> > Larry - how are you defining "human nature?" Would you consider human nature to be the immaterial or spiritual state of man?
> ...



Larry - if you are saying that the human nature contains the soul, the spiritual inclination of man, then by extension you are implicating that Jesus was born with a sin nature. If Jesus inherited his nature from Mary, and if the Mary has a sin nature, then by it stands to reason (according to your argument) that Jesus was born with a sin nature also. I want to proceed carefully here because I don't want to accuse of you of having that view. Maybe I am missing something in your explanation. I'll give you and opportunity to respond.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 29, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Larry - if you are saying that the human nature contains the soul, the spiritual inclination of man, then by extension you are implicating that Jesus was born with a sin nature. If Jesus inherited his nature from Mary, and if the Mary has a sin nature, then by it stands to reason (according to your argument) that Jesus was born with a sin nature also. I want to proceed carefully here because I don't want to accuse of you of having that view. Maybe I am missing something in your explanation. I'll give you and opportunity to respond.



I don't think that what i said implies that Jesus was born with a sin nature.
He was born with a human nature, but without sin.
He inherited His nature from Mary in such a way that it was human but without sin.

If He only inherited a body from her and not a human soul, could He have been truly tempted in every respect as we are (Heb 4:15)?

So although He received His human nature from Mary, He did not inherit the sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. This goes back to the idea that from conception His human nature was joined with His divine.


----------

