# sin passed through man???



## Matthew1344 (Dec 4, 2014)

Do we inherit sin from our earthly father? I have a couple friends that believe this.

I can't see how this is true when reading romans 5. What do yall think?


----------



## Matthew1344 (Dec 4, 2014)

I've heard them say "we don't get sin from our moms. We get it from our dads."

I thought when Adam sinned we all sinned. He represented us. Because he is our representative, we are all born fallen. 

But Christ wasn't born sinful because Adam didn't represent him. He was his own head.

Those are the only 2 heads. Adam. Christ. We are all born under Adam as our head. But Christ, being "much more" powerful than Adam, has rescued from the headship of Adam, all whom the father has made Christ be their head. 

Am I making sense?


----------



## Justified (Dec 4, 2014)

> Question 22: Did all mankind fall in that first transgression ?
> 
> Answer: The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression. (WLC Q22)





> III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (WCF CH 6)



The Confession speaks of Adam being the root of all mankind, and therefore through ordinary generation, i.e, through our parents, we inherit sin, as they are connected to Adam. However, I like the Larger Catechism's answer better. When the covenant was made with Adam, it was made with him as federal head of all mankind; he represented each and every one of us. When he fell, we all fell. Christ though made under the law was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is why he did not inherit our sin nature. I don't think its because Jesus didn't have a biological father that he didn't have a sin nature. It had more to do with him being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Although Christ didn't inherit our sin nature, he still fulfilled the Covenant of Works for us. He had to. So, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, Christ was born into the Covenant of Works; however, unlike us, he fulfilled it.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Dec 4, 2014)

My friend's points are that, in sexual reproduction, the father is the one that passes down the sin to the child.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Dec 4, 2014)

It seems like nonsense for thr father to look at his son and say "Yup, he gets his sin from me." And the mother to say "Yes, he didn't get it through me". 

Am I wrong?


----------



## Justified (Dec 4, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> My friend's points are that, in sexual reproduction, the father is the one that passes down the sin to the child.


It seems silly to claim that the sin inherited is biologically. You inherit sin by way of penalty from breaking the CoW. It seems like a robust covenant theology is the best way to remedy this nonsense. You're also absolutely right by quoting Romans 5 and tying it to headship.


----------



## Toasty (Dec 4, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> My friend's points are that, in sexual reproduction, the father is the one that passes down the sin to the child.




According to Romans 5, Adam is our representative and when he sinned, that resulted in our condemnation.


----------



## littlepeople (Dec 4, 2014)

Jesus wasn't "in" Adam, when he fell.


----------



## MW (Dec 4, 2014)

The guilt of Adam's first sin is imputed to his posterity.

Corruption of nature is conveyed by ordinary generation from parents (father and mother) to their children.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 4, 2014)

Rather than a focus on the "male" partner as a kind of "source" for the transmission of that flesh-connected inclination to sin (aka, concupiscence), 
the Scriptural view (reflected in our Confessional theology) is that natural generation (_natural_ being _ordinary_) is the means. Two/both sinners.

As simple as it sounds, to make male seed the sole instrument--which then seems to clear the Virgin Birth of a "taint"--this ends up with a mixed up condition for women in general (that, though being thoroughly sinful, they nonetheless have "pure" or at least non-sin-tainted ova); besides supplying a kind of first step of backwards and fallacious reasoning toward the immaculate conception theory. I.e., for X final condition, Y must necessarily be a precondition; etc.

The question of transmission of sin-nature to a human soul raises the question of the source of the soul itself, for which there are two basic positions: creationist and traducionist; the former meaning that God supplies each personal existence mediately with a body (parentally) and a soul immediately. The latter view understands that both body and soul (the latter more mysteriously) are born of parental substance. Traducionism appears to be the more common view among Reformed theologians, having on balance the fewest difficulties associated. But, creationism has the one great advantage of mooting the question of Jesus' pure soul from conception/quickening/birth.​
But the truth is that humanity per se is not innately sinful, but *fallen humanity*. Concupiscence is innate to fallen humanity; and the overshadowing power of Holy Spirit is the grace by which the Son is born with and from our human nature (out of Mary), yet without sin (her SIN!), yea without concupiscence even.

Original Sin is comprised of 1) the guilt of Adam's first sin; 2) the want or lack of original righteousness; and 3) the corruption of his whole nature (see WSC 18); which results in all the actual transgressions that proceed from it, and are added to it, making up our whole sinful estate.


----------



## KeithW (Dec 4, 2014)

This is my own opinion after having considered this in the past, and trying to put it into simple ideas. What problem is your friend really trying to answer? The real question is, why did Jesus not have a sin nature?

One theory, which your friend holds, is that the sin nature, corruption, is passed through the man and not the woman, therefore no sin nature was transmitted to Jesus.

Another theory is held by the Roman Catholic Church. They believe a miracle occurred when Mary was born so she was born without a sin nature. They call this immaculate conception. Since neither "parent" had a sin nature then no sin nature could be transmitted to Jesus.

Yet another theory can be to move the miracle about a sin nature not being conveyed from the conception of Mary to the conception of Jesus. The Holy Spirit of God was already performing a miracle in the conception of Jesus, so the sin nature not being conveyed was part of that miracle.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Dec 4, 2014)

A helpful talk related to this discussion was given by Rev. David Silversides on "The Origin of the Soul."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 5, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Traducionism appears to be the more common view among Reformed theologians, having on balance the fewest difficulties associated. But, creationism has the one great advantage of mooting the question of Jesus' pure soul from conception/quickening/birth.



Bruce,

I wasn't aware that Traducianism was the more common view among Reformed theologians. According to Berkhof, it is the exception:



> 1. HISTORICAL VIEWS RESPECTING THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. Greek philosophy devoted considerable attention to the problem of the human soul and did not fail to make its influence felt in Christian theology. The nature, the origin, and the continued existence of the soul, were all subjects of discussion. Plato believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of the soul. In the early Church the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul was practically limited to the Alexandrian school. Origen was the chief representative of this view and combined it with the notion of a pre-temporal fall. Two other views at once made their appearance and proved to be far more popular in Christian circles. The theory of creationism holds that God creates a new soul at the birth of every individual. It was the dominant theory in the Eastern Church, and also found some advocates in the West. Jerome and Hilary of Pictavium were its most prominent representatives. In the Western Church the theory of Traducianism gradually gained ground. According to this view the soul as well as the body of man originates by propagation. It is usually wedded to the realistic theory that human nature was created in its entirety by God and is ever-increasingly individualized as the human race multiplies. Tertullian was the first to state this theory of Traducianism and under his influence it continued to gain favor in the North African and Western Church. It seemed to fit in best with the doctrine of the transmission of sin that was current in those circles. Leo the Great called it the teaching of the catholic faith. In the East it found no favorable reception. Augustine hesitated to choose between the two views. Some of the earlier Scholastics were somewhat undecided, though they regarded creationism as the more probable of the two; but in course of time it became the consensus of opinion among the Schoolmen that the individual souls were created. Says Peter the Lombard: “The Church teaches that souls are created at their infusion into the body.” And Thomas Aquinas went even further by saying: “It is heretical to say that the intellectual soul is transmitted by way of generation.” This remained the prevailing view in the Roman Catholic Church. From the days of the Reformation there was a difference of opinion among the Protestants. Luther expressed himself in favor of Traducianism, and this became the prevailing opinion in the Lutheran Church. Calvin, on the other hand, decidedly favored creationism. Says he in his commentary on Gen. 3:16: “Nor is it necessary to resort to that ancient figment of certain writers, that souls are derived by descent from our first parents.” Ever since the days of the Reformation this has been the common view in Reformed circles. This does not mean that there were no exceptions to the rule. Jonathan Edwards and Hopkins in New England theology favored Traducianism. Julius Mueller in his work on The Christian Doctrine of Sin again put up an argument in favor of the pre-existence of the soul, coupled with that of a pre-temporal fall, in order to explain the origin of sin.
> 
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (pp. 196–197). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.



To me the issue that I'm concerned about more than the origin of the soul is the means by which a person is reckoned sinful in Adam. I believe the Confessions reflect Romans 5 that notes that both our guilt and culpability in Adam is by way of imputation. 

Berkhof notes some difficulties concerning Traducianism:



> It is generally wedded to the theory of realism, since this is the only way in which it can account for original guilt. By doing this it affirms the numerical unity of the substance of all human souls, an untenable position; and also fails to give a satisfactory answer to the question, why men are held responsible only for the first sin of Adam, and not for his later sins, nor for the sins of the rest of their forebears. (5) Finally, in the form just indicated it leads to insuperable difficulties in Christology. If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, and that sin was therefore the actual sin of every part of that human nature, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that the human nature of Christ was also sinful and guilty because it had actually sinned in Adam.
> 
> Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (pp. 198–199). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.



I think the important thing to remember in this is the reason we are reckoned guilty in Adam and righteous in Christ. They form two humanities in Romans 5. We are reckoned righteous in Christ not because we actually fulfilled all righteousness. In like manner, we are federally guilty and culpable in Adam not because we actually sinned but because that sin is imputed to us. We are in an _estate_ of sin and misery because of Adam.

The answer to the OP is, as Bruce noted, not to look for the man as the reason that a child is sinful but in imputation. Christ was not reckoned as "in Adam". He was born of spiritual seed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 5, 2014)

Rich,
I definitely mixed it up on which view has reportedly dominated Reformed circles. After some belated review, I note Berkhof's assessment is echoed by the Hodges. Apparently, some of the more rationalist-leaning Edwards and Shedd, subsq. GordonClark and Reymond; favored traducianism; but most of ours have followed Calvin. Dabney (ala Augustin) reportedly found the question hard to decide definitively (see Reformed Theology in America, p221).

Thank you for the correction.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 5, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Dabney (ala Augustin) reportedly found the question hard to decide definitively (see Reformed Theology in America, p221).



I think it's probably a difficult issue to establish definitively on the soul's origin from Scripture. I incline away from Traducianism because it tends to be wed to Realism because I'm convinced that Federalism accords with the Biblical description of how Adam's guilt is conveyed.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Dec 6, 2014)

The "natural" birth of a child is actually a _supernatural_ event, so it shouldn't surprise us if sin was conveyed through birth from the souls of the parents to the child. I've always thought I'm an exact copy of my parents as far as the Flesh is concerned. But then again, I believe all men are the same in the Flesh (i.e., the Flesh _itself_ is not diminished in this life, although the _power_ thereof may be frustrated by living according to the Spirit).


----------

