Inherited Sin

[Marycita]

This is one of those concepts...that whenever someone brings it up..I just don't quite understand it..

I get that we, as humans, all sin...but I just don't understand the "inherited" part ..:scratch:

Can anyone explain it?

Please and thank you :P

[cristianna]

That's actually an excellent question Mary! I've always been lead to believe and assume it's:

(summarized version)
Because of the fall of Eve, and ultimately Adam on Eve's behalf, we all are born into sin.

I could be wrong. Because as I thought about your question I realize I've never fully questioned or investigated what I've come to understand as "inherited sin".

It will be interesting to see what others have to say.

[Marycita]

:) Thanks!!

Honestly...it's the born into sin that confuses me...

I think because they way it's always been presented to me is that we all sin BECAUSE Adam and Eve did..but honestly..I have always sort of seen it as they were just the first ones to do it..if they wouldn't have, then someone else would have...so the "born into" confuses me...:scratch: maybe I have approached it from the wrong perspective though...dunno :P

[GraceSeeker]

:) Thanks!!

Honestly...it's the born into sin that confuses me...

I think because they way it's always been presented to me is that we all sin BECAUSE Adam and Eve did..but honestly..I have always sort of seen it as they were just the first ones to do it..if they wouldn't have, then someone else would have...so the "born into" confuses me...:scratch: maybe I have approached it from the wrong perspective though...dunno :P


Adam and Eve were created perfect, that is sinless. My verse for that is Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." Now, Jesus said that God alone is good (see Mark 10:18 or Luke 18:19). Why the contradiction?

Because the "good" that Jesus is referencing is "holiness". We've been talking quite about about holiness in the WP lately, so you probably have some sense of what it is. But in a nutshell, holy things are things that have the character of God about them, or that have been set apart for God's purposes. Certainly this describes Adam and Eve at the time of creation.

But though they were created by God and for his purpose, and though they were created in his very own image (and I don't think this means like a XEROX of his physical likeness as God is a spiritual being, but refers to his character), they also were created with free will to either conform of their own volition or to disobey.

They chose the later. And in so doing the image of God that was originally placed in them was marred. The fellowship that they originally had with God was lost (see Genesis 3:8-10 and 23-24). And as a result it is no longer true that they were holy.

Now, that which is not submissive to the will of God is obviously not only unholy, but also sinful. The thing is that we are not talking about individual acts, but of their entire nature, their way of thinking, even their way of perceiving the world, themselves and God that had become unholy. This is what we mean by a SIN nature. We don't mean individual acts are sinful or that commits certain sins such as lying, cheating, stealing, or murder. Bad as they are even worse is to have one's entire nature dedicated to self, flesh, and taking care of #1.

When Adam and Eve sinned it not only was a singular act, but because there appears to be an actual altering in their spiritual DNA, we who are their children have never known what it is to have anything other than a distorted spiritual self.

People can be perfectly "good" or "innocent" in the colloquial sense of the words, and still be acting out of this self-centered nature that we are all born with. (If you doubt this, just try not feeding a baby or changing his/her diaper and let me know if they don't insist on it. The precious darlings can get very demanding if you don't cater to them.) And thus we say that we have inherited depravity. That is what people mean when they say that we are born in sin. Not that we are guilty of any given sin, but simply that our very natures are not disposed to God, but to self. In other words we are all born with a SIN nature and we need God to step into our lives to change that, to redeem us, so that we can be reborn into his likeness in our lives.

This is what the Cross of Jesus provides for that we could not provide for ourselves.

[Marycita]

Well...that makes more sense..

Thank you :)

[cristianna]

That is an excellent way to explicitly explain it GraceSeeker. :thumbsup:

[tpony298]

very clear explanation. I can only add that the child example could have went a bit further. It is one thing to cry for something you need, but when they reach those "terrible 2's". theydemand everything in sight and scream and pout if they can't have it. I am not saying a 2 year old is sinning...he is just following his natural nature.. the same thing happens to teens. They don't mean to be bad, it is the that they are trying to deal with the inherited sin without God's help. They need to recognize their need for salvation, (Jesus Christ). Repent and accept Him as personal savour. Then their sin will be washed away and they are on their way to holiness.
Love, Joyce

[cristianna]

Great examples too TPony!

(And how are you??? It's so great to see you!!!)

[tpony298]

Cristiana....I am much better...getting stronger....I still can't walk, but that will come in time...God's time. I will wait on him.

Love Pony

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

This is one of those concepts...that whenever someone brings it up..I just don't quite understand it..

I get that we, as humans, all sin...but I just don't understand the "inherited" part ..:scratch:

Can anyone explain it?

Please and thank you :P

The existence of the predisposition toward sin, the inclination to sin, specific sinful inclinations in themselves (which get inherited the same way we download other personality traits from parental DNA), etc. all bes "inherited sin".

We do not inherit someone else's guilt, but we inherit a set of conditions as part and parcel of the DNA blueprint of our flesh which ensures we will find our own way to creating our own guilt. Twisted nurture feeds twisted nature and produces twisted thoughts, perceptions, feelings and actions. In a very real sense, though not all of us suffer mental illness (psychosis), each of us bes born spiritually divorced, to some degree, from reality itself and thus prone to some degree of distortion in our perceptions. The process of reconciliation with God bes in some respects the process of becoming whole again and truly in touch with reality.

The equating of "sinfulness" with certain human traits which actually serve a purpose in that wholeness, or with certain developmental stages which no human can control or consciously choose to skip, Moriah does not agree with and finds more detrimental than helpful. When we vilify "self-centeredness" particularly as linked to the innate configuratus of a toddler, for example, we vilify a necessary phase or stage of human development as well as a necessary point of perspective toward the formulation of an wholistic one. We then tend to start categorizing things in these terms and veering off into passing judgment on others as a result and then we bes right back to eating that fruit from the forbidden tree which insists upon drawing distinctions and divisions instead of reconciling with wholeness and unity. Moriah does not find that approach to things helpful, personally. (Sorry if that offends those who need it.)

Tangential to the above: from a strictly psychotherapeutic perspective, ascribing adult motives to children's behavior constitutes a cardinal sin of parenting which causes vastly immeasurable psychological and emotional damage to a child. There bes developmental reasons why, for example, two-year-olds find it difficult to share: their conceptualisation of the flow of time and the permanence of objects bes still incomplete, for starters, and for them to relinquish something treasured bes truly perceived a threatening proposition as they have no "guarantee" of its return in time and space. There bes likewise developmental processes going on which necessitate a self-centric POV for the toddler, and this bes no more "sinful" than the fact that most toddlers cannot yet read, either. The toddler has just consciously separated self out from caregiver, nourishment, comfort and environment, and the only method for establishing and maintaining that awareness bes to operate from an ego-centered perspective. Empathy gets developed later, between the ages of 4 and 7. Once the separation of self from other/environment bes completed to the point of being "comfortable" then the self can begin to "project" into other "selves" and become aware of THEM as separate with feelings and needs of their own -- but not before. Again, this bes no more "sinful" than the fact that the infant crawls before it walks. It bes the mind's way of first lying about and rolling over, then crawling, then pulling self up using objects, then toddling holding onto things and at last walking without holding on. What would be SIN and truly condemnable would be to punish the crawling infant for "refusing" to walk rather than recognizing its crawling as a needful stage in order to develop the ability TO walk in the future and encouraging it with praise, showering it with love, and treating it with an enlightened understanding of the limitations of its current stage of development without the need to bind it to nefarious value-judgments (or rather, devaluing judgments).

[GraceSeeker]

Focusing on the self rather than focusing on God is indeed an example of the SIN nature. The FALL was not so much a result of the act of eating from the forbidden fruit, as it was the idea that rather than doing what God said one could do what one choose to do for one knows as well as God what is right and wrong. In other words it was PRIDE that goeth before a fall. When an individual focuses on one's self, especially when one beccomes the center of one's own universe, that is the making of one's self into a god. Yet, there can only be one God.

The use of a child's attitude was done to show that this is common to all of humanity. Given that we are born with the history of the FALL already having occurred in our past, I don't know if we can imagine what infant behavior might have been like apart from the FALL. I understand the developmental stages of an individual from infant through adulthood and that we all pass through them. But that we all pass through them does not mean that they cannot be illustrative of the very fallenness which we all possess as well.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Focusing on the self rather than focusing on God is indeed an example of the SIN nature. The FALL was not so much a result of the act of eating from the forbidden fruit, as it was the idea that rather than doing what God said one could do what one choose to do for one knows as well as God what is right and wrong. In other words it was PRIDE that goeth before a fall. When an individual focuses on one's self, especially when one beccomes the center of one's own universe, that is the making of one's self into a god. Yet, there can only be one God.

See, the issue here bes that not everyone subscribes to the unique underpinning axiomatic assumptions that shore up this set of propositions as relevant in any way. To Moriah this bes -- well not entirely a purely "generational" phenomenon, more like a hybrid of a specific generational and geographical or cultural paradigm. The main difficulty with it being that its language must be taught before it can be appreciated, and the main issue with that being that the teaching of its language bes inherently abusive, spiritually, emotionally and psychologically. Meaning the process by which this language bes instilled bes more destructive ultimately to a life, mind and heart than building a different bridge to the absolute.

The use of a child's attitude was done to show that this is common to all of humanity.And the fact that this use relies entirely upon a complete misapprehension of the theoretical child's supposed/alleged "attitude" reveals ... what? That all logic pertinent to the above notion bes entirely fallacious, formulated as it bes from predication upon falsehood.

It does not matter whether one builds with hay and stubble or pure gold -- if the foundation upon which one builds bes dung, the entirety will crumble and be useless in the end, perhaps even dangerous. And while we can rely on God to restore all things in the end? That does not erase the risk of losing years to such lies.

Given that we are born with the history of the FALL already having occurred in our past, I don't know if we can imagine what infant behavior might have been like apart from the FALL.This bes immaterial. The real issue bes that PRIOR to the fall, humans did not ignorantly ascribe ADULT motives to INFANT behavior thus twisting their entire understanding of salvation itself and turning it into yet another human achievement, beginning with ascribing its origin to developmental phases humans would naturally, with time, eventually finish and pass through.

Think about it.

I understand the developmental stages of an individual from infant through adulthood and that we all pass through them. But that we all pass through them does not mean that they cannot be illustrative of the very fallenness which we all possess as well. (*gently*) -- It thinksy you credit fallenness with entirely too much power and authority to overwrite the indelible stamp of integrity with which the Almighty bes invested His creation.

[GraceSeeker]

PRIOR to the fall, humans did not ignorantly ascribe ADULT motives to INFANT behavior That subject is moot. There were no infants prior to the fall.


(*gently*) -- It thinksy you credit fallenness with entirely too much power and authority to overwrite the indelible stamp of integrity with which the Almighty bes invested His creation.

I think you don't realize the utter pervasiveness of sin and its impact on the human condition. Sin has indeed marred us, changed us from what God intended us to be to something that falls short of his glory, even with our best efforts. Thus we are dependent on him, not our works, for any restoration. Fortunately, he is both willing and capable of bringing that about in the lives of those willing to let God be God again, rather than continuing to assert their own preeminence in God's place.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That subject is moot. There were no infants prior to the fall.
Excellent. Then it trusts you can apply that to your former statement as well, as you bes the one what broughts it up?

I think you don't realize the utter pervasiveness of sin and its impact on the human condition. Sin has indeed marred us, changed us from what God intended us to be to something that falls short of his glory, even with our best efforts.Au contraire ... it realises this entirely. Maybe even deeper than yourself, as it does not trust the human mind extrapolating and attempting to LIVE the toxic results of the forbidden fruit consumption by delineating supposed "good" and supposed "evil". You ask it to compare the FALLEN speculation upon infant behavior BEFORE the Fall where NONE even exists (by your own admission), as a means of deriving substantiation for this FALLEN division and delineation??? of something the knowledge of which, in fact, bes originally before the fall, what?
........ forbidden???

You don't see the contradiction here?

Thus we are dependent on him, not our works, for any restoration. Fortunately, he is both willing and capable of bringing that about in the lives of those willing to let God be God again, rather than continuing to assert their own preeminence in God's place.Amen to that! :thumbsup: No argument there whatsoever.

[GraceSeeker]

Au contraire ... it realises this entirely. Maybe even deeper than yourself, as it does not trust the human mind extrapolating and attempting to LIVE the toxic results of the forbidden fruit consumption by delineating supposed "good" and supposed "evil". You ask it to compare the FALLEN speculation upon infant behavior BEFORE the Fall where NONE even exists (by your own admission), as a means of deriving substantiation for this FALLEN division and delineation??? of something the knowledge of which, in fact, bes originally before the fall, what?
........ forbidden???




Then the only place that we appear not to be in agreement is my reason for using infants as an illustration of the fall. I don't think we can find that all human beings are fallen, without recognizing that ALL human beings are fallen. That would include infants. I simply tried to point out a place where I believe that fallenness can be observed. You don't think that what I pointed to illustrates their fallenness, fine.

But, it would not make them any less fallen than the rest of us.

For I assert that to say that we cannot see examples of fallenness in the lives of infants is an effort to somehow show them to not be fallen; and such a statement would be contrary to the testimony of scripture itself that all are indeed fallen. I do think that one can observationally see evidence of the fall in human behavior, including the behaviors of infants. I accept that you dispute that I gave the best example. By whatever means one sees it occur, infants are not only born into, but conceived into a world that is stained by the toxicity of SIN, and thus from conception are impunged with it.

As expressed somewhere above, I think SIN's effects are so great as to alter the very essence of our spiritual DNA, thus showing itself and its effects in all of our lives. What remains is a vestial image of God in which we were created, but praise God it does remain. And, through the power of the Holy Spirit, this image can be reborn within us. Hence we speak of the rebirth of those who are in Christ Jesus.