How is original sin passed on?
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
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
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
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
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill! Now everyone will know your middle name! tsk tsk
I call that a shamless plug.
I call that a shamless plug.
Bill! Now everyone will know your middle name! tsk tsk
I call that a shamless plug.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
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.
Larry - how are you defining "human nature?" Would you consider human nature to be the immaterial or spiritual state of man?
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
I would say that human nature is body and soul.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
