The concept of “Original Sin” has long been a vital part of Christian Orthodoxy yet is being challenged and redefined by many in the Church today. Even conservatives are beginning to question the validity of the traditional Evangelical understanding of the doctrine asking questions of its legitimacy in its current form of understanding.

Perhaps John Calvin defines Original Sin most concisely as “The deprivation of a nature formerly good and pure.” More specifically, from a Reformed Evangelical perspective, it refers to the fall of humanity from its original state of innocence and purity to a state of corruption and guilt (distinguished later).  It is the cause of man’s translation from a state of unbroken communion before God to one of spiritual death and condemnation.

The term “Original Sin” is not found in Scripture; Saint Augustine coined it in the 4th century. The primary passage used to defend the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21. Most specifically, Romans 5:12 gives us the most explicit reference to this concept: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” The “one man” is Adam. The “all men” is all of Adam’s posterity—the entire human race.

J.I. Packer clears up a possible misconception and further defines Original Sin:

The assertion of original sin means not that sin belongs to human nature as God made it (God made mankind upright, Ecclesiastes 7:29), nor that sin is involved in the processes of reproduction and birth (the uncleanness connected with menstruation, semen, and childbirth in Leviticus 12 and 15 was typical and ceremonial only, not moral and real), but that . . . sinfulness marks everyone from birth . . . it derives to us in a real . . . mysterious way from Adam, our first representative before God.

This concept is not only hard to understand, but it is also quite disturbing. From perspective of traditional Evangelicalism from the time of Augustine, the west has believed that humanity is condemned for Adam’s sin. To state that we are condemned for the sin of another is not only offensive and unfair, but in the mind of most it is also ludicrous. It is because of this that Pascal wrote the following:

Without doubt, nothing is more shocking to our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has implicated in its guilt men so far from the original sin that they seem incapable of sharing it. This flow of guilt does not seem merely impossible to us, but indeed most unjust. What could be more contrary to the rules of our miserable justice than the eternal damnation of a child, incapable of will, for an act in which he seems to have so little part that it was actually committed 6,000 years before he existed? Certainly nothing jolts us more rudely than this doctrine . . .

It certainly does seem unfair for us to be blamed for the sin of another. My little niece used to commit various misdemeanors such as messing up the living room. She would find solace in her younger brother, who was not yet able to speak and defend himself. She would blame him for the mess that she had made, which, of course, was not right. Unfortunately, she got away with it many times before her parents caught on. Because of this, her brother was punished for crimes he did not commit. Is it the same with Adam and humanity? Are we being punished for a sin that we had nothing to do with?

Death, Paul says, is passed down to us from Adam. But there is more to it than that. As Bob Pyne puts it, “We have no problem affirming that all people die, but what did Paul mean when he linked death to sin?” Furthermore, physical death is not the only consequence of Adam’s sin that we inherit. Romans 5:18 states that the transgression of Adam resulted in our condemnation. So then, we are not only destined to die because of Adam’s sin, but we are also condemned to eternal death.
Was the sin of Adam transferred to us? If so, how? Are we condemned for the sin of another? Are Pascal’s concerns valid?

In the next few blogs, we will attempt to answer these questions. First, we will look at how the Church through the centuries has dealt with this issue. Second, we will take a closer look at the passage in question and attempt to narrow our interpretive options. Finally, we will make a synthesis by taking into account the possible interpretations along with the theological implications of each.

Initial thoughts?

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    27 replies to "Are we condemned for the sin of another? (Part 1)"

    • JoanieD

      I look forward to reading the next parts of this discussion, Michael. I have had a lot of the same concerns you expressed here that people have spoken about. The Bible said that when God created everything, including humans, it was “good.” Animals have instinct to guide them into “knowing” what is needful for them to live. (Although of course, sometimes they will eat poisonous things.) People seem to need to learn EVERYTHING from “scratch” from their parents who learned from their parents, etc. It seems that humans, if we ever in our history were in tune with what is good for us, lost that ability. So, perhaps, we also lost a connection to God. Why did we lost that connection? I think we stopped “listening.” There are still SOME people who do seem to have a connection to God and they do seem guided in knowing what is right, not only to keep themselves alive, but to benefit their fellow human beings. So, I think that as a species, we lost a natural ability to understand ourselves and our environment AND we chose to do things that were hurtful to others and others. That choice removed us even further from any ability to connect with God.

      So, I guess in my mind, if I have to consider Original Sin at all (and I don’t know that Jesus “taught” this) I would say it is people’s tendency to choose what is not in accordance with God’s will. Accepting the grace that Jesus offers us puts us back in touch with God.

    • Lisa R

      Of course it seems unfair, but so does the doctrine of election and the
      existance of Hell. But that unfairness is a natural by-product of sinful nature
      that we inherited that wants self to be in control instead of God.

      God is not man that He should lie and certainly death and corruption ensued
      from Adam’s disobedience, as promised. Adam opened the door of moral
      responsiblity that now makes us accountable for every thing we do. And
      because we inherited sin, we just can’t do anything good in God’s sight.
      I believe it is better to look at sin as a law and principle that was passed
      down. So this does not negate the goodness of creation but puts us in need
      of a redeemer.

    • Nick N.

      I’d just like to throw a couple of questions into the mix that perhaps might be asked/answered in the next couple of posts.

      1. Do we distinguish imputed sin from personal sin and if so what is the difference?

      2. If we do not see a difference then how do we interpret the following passages?

      The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Eze. 18:20)

      “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16; cf. 2Ki. 14:6; 2Chr. 25:4)

      3. How is sin linked to physical death — was Adam immortal prior to sinning or was he mortal with access to the tree of life and sin simply restricted his access to it allowing physical death to eventually occur?

    • Lisa R

      While it does appear that Ezekiel 18:20 speaks of personal sins, I think
      they key is found in vs. 21 and 22 that speaks of turning from sin and
      practicing righteousness. This must be squared with Romans 3:9-10,

      …we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as
      it is written, “there is none righteous, no not one


      Romans 3:23: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

      So how do we practice righteousness, if we have sinned? We can’t. It is the
      righteousness that is imputed to us through faith in Christ that turn from the
      sin that spoken of in Ezek 18:20 and Deut 24:16.

      I also don’t believe that the sin spoken of in Romans 5:12 is either imputed
      or personal. It’s a nature that we inherited and we inherited a sinning

    • disciple

      Initial thought: to be made in God’s image (and likeness) could imply that God created us with a natural bent toward a desire to be God, not just be like God. Only, then, through God’s graceful provision are we taught, by God, through Christ, that the epitome God’s ultimate plan for the human race is self denial and obedience.

      As a shameless plug for my last post on the ‘Why I am a Calvinist’ blog, then, I’d once again come back to the question “Are we all condemned by sin and by ELECTION (that is, ALL humans by God’s election) saved by grace (Christ), though we can CHOOSE to reject Christ?” Is the denial of Christ not the only sin Christ didn’t die for?! If the rhetorical question above (in quotes) were true, then, the explanation of “What about babies and the mentally incapacitated who die?” would be a much simpler answer!

      Not that palatability determines veracity! 😉


    • jntowers

      With regard to the question about being condemned b/c of someone else’s sin, my mind always goes back to the state or nature of Adam & Eve – strictly from a logical point of view.

      My first thought is always “Well that sure is unfair, being condemned b/c they couldn’t do what God told them.” Then, of course, I look at myself – even having that hindsight, and having Scripture – and seeing how I still sin and struggle with sin. So I’m quickly smacked to the floor with the “unfair” argument. However, that then raises other questions in my mind…

      I struggle with and give into sin, even in my saved/righteous state… Adam & Eve gave into sin, and they were “perfect” humans. They were tempted, and failed. We are tempted, and we fail. They were “pre-fall” – so the sin nature, theoretically, did not exist, right? But if that’s true, then why would they even be tempted? How were they different than us?

      Does the scripture possibly imply a bigger picture idea here for sin, one that’s outside of created time? Adam was the first, chronologically, to sin, bringing sin into this created world, with created time. To us, within this created timeline, that seems unfair. But picture a bottle that represents our universe, and within the bottle is the timeline of history with all humans along that line. You have God, outside the bottle looking in, seeing everything. You also have separation from God (i.e. sin?) – a concept that’s bigger than the bottle as well. God sees all humans “eating the apple”, representing sin in the bottle, and therefore puts his Son in the bottle to remedy that sin. We see Adam as the “first” sinner; therefore “introducing” all of us to that sin. We, therefore, think it’s unfairly Adam & Eve’s fault; but in reality, it’s much bigger than that.

      I’m confusing myself with my own post, and trying to play a little devil’s advocate… how’s that for some speculation and creative license!

    • Josh


      I think you are having a categorical error in regards to sin and temptation. Temptation does not equate to sin. If this were the case Jesus sinned when he was tempted, and if that’s the case then we are really up the creek!

      In regard to the “Original Sin”, the temptation came through a lie from satan, the essence of the idea (and lie) was, “What God has given you isn’t good enough, you should have more.” This idea was completely and totally foreign to Adam and Eve’s thought life until the serpent injected it into their minds. Thus they functioned as free will beings and made a “choice” just like all of us do daily (as you pointed out), and they chose to be disobedient and sin (like we still do).

      On a side note, I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that it’s unfair that one life has the power to save the souls of many, almost as if it was “expected” or “Gods duty” to save us. Of course this is only possible because Jesus was/is the God-man, but still it’s interesting what the human mind focuses on in regard to issues like these.

      Your brother in Christ,


    • jntowers

      Good point, and I do agree that being tempted definitely does not equate to sinning – like you said, we’d all be up a creek.

      Let me just ask this – what made Adam & Eve different than us?

    • stevemoore

      No belly buttons. ;^)

    • Josh

      I love the belly button one! Haha.

      In regards to what makes Adam and Eve different from us, I think Jonathan Edwards’s explanation of the doctrine of original sin explains it well.

      I do not have it in front of me, so I am trying to paraphrase from memory, so if someone who has the volume in front of them could correct me please do so.

      If I remember correctly, Jonathan Edwards breaks down man into two parts, the spiritual and the physical. Not sure if those are his exact terms, but that is what it would be in our modern time I think.

      Adam and Eve (when they were originally created by God) functioned in the way God designed. That is, the spiritual governed the physical. The physical (the body and all its elements) were merely the slave (I think is the term Edwards uses) of the spiritual. So the body in and of itself, isn’t evil, because it’s rudder, or controlling mechanism is the spiritual, which is good.

      Now after the Fall you have the spiritual death, thus the body (i.e. the flesh) is no longer under the guidance of the spirit, and left to its own desires it can only succumb to all its pleasures and wants, thus doing evil.

      So to answer “how are we different to Adam and Eve”, I would need more clarification as to if you are referring to, the unregenerate man, or to those In Christ?

      For the unregenerate it would be, they simply obey their fleshly desires, because they have no spiritual sense about them.

      For those in Christ, it would be, we are in a sense the same as Adam and Eve before the fall (i.e. that we are alive spiritually), but in another sense different because we continue to fall even though we are alive spiritually.

      But I think a sufficient explanation for this can be done through the illustration of a dirt road that’s constantly driven on. After time grooves develop in the road and it’s becomes normal to drive and stay in those grooves. Water comes to the dirt and it turns to mud, then the grooves get deeper and deeper, until the grooves themselves act similar to that of a railway (i.e. there’s no other alternative way, its only done through the grooves).

      A similar thing can be said for us, we become so use to being fleshly that even when we are reborn in Christ, we still retain much of our “flesh”, because it is (we falsely think) safe to us because we are so accustom to it. We are so in drenched in our fleshly “grooves” that we don’t have much desire for spiritual things. This is why there are spiritual disciplines like fasting, quiet time, etc, so that through the denial of the body’s desires one’s spirit can develop and grow. And this is what we as Protestants call the process of sanctification.

      Dallas Willards book, Renovation of the Heart, is perhaps the best book on Spiritual Development and I have come across.

      Hope this is useful.

      Your brother in Christ,


    • Josh

      Last little paragraph should read, “is perhaps the best book on Spiritual Development that I have come across.

      lol opps.

    • JoanieD

      Josh, add a little “ip” in the middle of your “lol” and “opps” and we get
      lolipopps! 🙂 (Not spelled correctly, but still…)

      Joanie D. (tired in Maine)

    • Chad Winters

      Michael, it looks like you and the Theology and Steak guy had the same idea at the same time 🙂

    • tobias

      I think this is a great topic to post on, and it’s one I’ve been pondering quite a bit lately!

      I’m very interested to hear (read) your thoughts on this as this post series unfolds!

      Personally, I don’t usually see folks (myself grudginly included here) exercise much intelletual honesty on topics like this. We say much that we don’t (maybe can’t) understand, but say it as if we understand it.

      For example, can we really state that we understand how exactly the “original sin” transferred from Adam and Eve to us? It wouldn’t seem to be physically inherited. Would it be spiritually inherited? If so, how does that work? What does that really look like? If we can’t explain it, it’s a mystery. But I suppose that with God, sometimes mysteries are par for the course (enter: faith).

      I think it’s Vance (if it wasn’t you Vance, sorry!) that I’m loosely paraphrasing when I say that I can live with some of this tension–the tension of holding some beliefs that I can’t exactly understand or explain (though I try my darndest to understand). I just think honestly on tough issues like this will dig to the real questions, and also put one face to face with the choice to have faith, or to not.

      Also, this question of “fairness”, I think, tends to get muddied. Obviously, we all sin. We’re sinners. But I don’t think this personal sin is the real “fairness” question, or “How can God be just if…” question. The real question seems to be whether a person who has not sinned (e.g. an unborn baby) is held responsible for the sin of another (Adam). (I’m assuming that the unborn baby isn’t able to sin yet.) This seems to be a question about the nature of our justification before God. I’ll leave that question hanging out there, but I’ll add this: if you say that unborn babies go to heaven, it would seem to suggest that one has to do something to go to Hell, which would mean personal sin only (not imputed, inherited, original sin) condemns you (someone please correct me if that logic is off).

      Anyway, looking forward to the forthcoming posts on this original sin topic!


    • tobias

      Addendum (to post #14)!

      – Regarding the unborn babies paragraph, I’m not stating a position or belief, just my pondering the issues. It would also seem a Calvinistic stance (via election) would easily explain this scenario. I do think, though, that this type of question is ultimately getting at how we are justified before God, and the possibly tough implications.


    • Josh

      This may be useful to you Tobias, taken from (

      “This is a difficult and sensitive issue. Any answer must take into account that all of us are born sinful and thus worthy of judgment. The consistent New Testament emphasis upon the need for a second birth indicates that our natural state is that of sin, not innocence (John 3:1-12; Ephesians 2:1-5; cf. Psalm 51:5). We are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

      In addition to having sinful natures, we also come into the world with Adam’s sin imputed to us. Because of our union with Adam, we are born guilty of his first sin (Romans 5:12-21). We go into this doctrine in detail elsewhere, but for now it is enough to point out that, according to Paul, the fact that all die physically (even those who, like infants, did not have the opportunity to knowingly transgress a law of God-Romans 5:13-14) is a demonstration that we are connected with the guilt of Adam’s sin.

      If we are all born under sin, and salvation is by faith in Christ (which infants do not seem to have the mental capacity to exercise), then it might at first seem that no infants can be saved. We are not, however, aware of anyone who actually takes this position. We are convinced that it would be a premature, unbiblical conclusion.

      One reason is that there are apparent examples in Scripture of infants who were saved. We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). In Luke’s theology, being filled with the Spirit is consistently seen as an aspect of the Spirit’s work among those who are regenerate (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24).

      Hundreds of years before John the Baptist, David wrote: “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” (Psalm 22:9-10). Because of David’s apparent mention of having faith in God while still an infant, some have concluded that God saves infants by giving them a “primitive” form of faith. That conclusion, however, is not necessary to our point; the main thing to see in this passage is that David evidently was in a saving relationship with God from his mother’s womb.

      These verses make it very unlikely that all infants who die are lost. If God saved John the Baptist and David in infancy, surely we are warranted in concluding that he has saved others in infancy that were not given the opportunity to grow up. Yet, it would also be unwarranted to conclude from these texts that all who die in infancy are saved. The regeneration of infants does not seem to be God’s usual way of working; we must keep in mind that “the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3).

      In light of these things, some have held that God saves some infants who die and not others. They point that this is seems most consistent with the doctrines of election and original sin.

      John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves all infants who die.

      In a funeral sermon several years ago for an infant, Dr. Piper summarized the basis for his conclusion:

      Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said, “If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”

      In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God’s will or God’s glory then that person’s sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.

      The other text is Romans 1:20 where Paul is dealing with persons who have not heard the gospel and have no access to it, but who do have access to the revelation of God’s glory in nature:

      Romans 1:20 “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

      In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God’s glory – did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.

      The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.

      Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God’s inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.

      In another sermon, he adds:

      God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing. It seems to me that the most natural guess would be that babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God’s grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours.
      It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty. He is saving them because, although they are sinful, in his mercy he desires that compassion be exercised upon those who are sinful and yet lack the capacity to grasp the truth revealed about Him in nature and to the human heart.

      It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. God’s justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression.

      Finally, for those who have struggled with this issue through personal loss, we would want to say that knowing what happens to infants who die is a good place to rest your soul. But it is only the second best place for resting your soul. As John Piper has said in another funeral sermon for a young infant:

      The first best place is simply this: Psalm 119:68—”Thou art good and doest good.”

      This was George Mueller’s funeral text when his wife Mary died of rheumatic fever in 1860. His three points were:

      The Lord was good, and did good, in giving her to me.
      The Lord was good and did good, in so long leaving her to me.
      The Lord was good and did good, in taking her from me.

      He did not start from Mary and move to God’s goodness. He started with the unshakable confidence in the goodness of God rooted in Jesus Christ, and he interpreted his life and his loss in view of that goodness.

      That is the bottom line is the goodness of God—that is the hope for us all, and the only hope.

      Our final song is a plea for God’s Spirit to wean us away from everything in the earth that would tempt us not to believe that. ”

      I would consider this a Calvinistic stance as well.

      Hope this helps.

      Your brother in Christ,


    • Lisa R

      Ah yes, what about those babies and folks afar off. I don’t think it is the “doing” something that makes us accountable for sin but the awareness. Paul says in Romans 3:20 that through the law comes the knowledge of sin and in 7:9, through this knowledge sin was made alive. God has provided a moral compass (Romans 1:19,20) that causes that awareness to kick in at some point. But before then, are we accountable? I don’t think so.

      I think that jntowers raises a good point – if we inherited a sin nature from Adam, as I believe we do, where did he get it from? Even as believers, we sin because there is principle at work in us (Rom 7) even though we are alive in Christ. But Adam and Eve sinned because of that same principle?

    • tobias


      Thanks for the reply.

      A few things.

      Josh said:
      In addition to having sinful natures, we also come into the world with Adam’s sin imputed to us. Because of our union with Adam, we are born guilty of his first sin (Romans 5:12-21)

      I, of course, accept this through faith, but that doesn’t make it make sense to me. Again, how is original sin imputed? How does that work? (Please refrain from tagging me with the “Pelagian” label! I do not hold to his teachings!)

      Josh said, quoting Dr. Piper:
      God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing.

      This seems to me to be an honest leaning.

      Josh said, quoting Dr. Piper:
      It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty.

      If infants are guilty, but they themselves haven’t yet sinned, then this must speak of original sin inherited, correct? This would bring us to my original point/question, which was regarding how original sin actually works or happens (see post #14).

      Josh said:
      As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy.

      This may very well be so, though it seems to be an explanation fashioned from the belief to fit the belief; It seems to be a domino belief. Not that this is something we shouldn’t sometimes do.

      Josh said:
      It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual).

      True enough, it isn’t inconsistent, but, again, I think this explanation is fashioned from the belief (Calvinistic election) to fit the belief. Overall, it seems the “Do infants go to heaven?” issue is something we don’t know. I get what you’re saying, Josh, but I think it’s an attempt to work it (infants who die are saved) into the theology, not something rock-solid.

      But that question was just an example I was using related to the “fairness” questions people ask. These seem born of the implications to how you view justification before God.

      By the way, I’m still on the fence with Calvinism/Arminianism. Still working through it. This blog has been very instrumental in getting me thinking! Thanks, P&P!

      Oh, and thanks for the link, Josh, I’ll check that out!


    • tobias

      Josh said:
      That is the bottom line is the goodness of God—that is the hope for us all, and the only hope.

      On this, I don’t wonder or ponder at all. I say, “Amen brutha!” 🙂


    • Josh

      Just to restate I didn’t say those things, I was quoting from (i.e. the DG Staff).

      Not that I don’t agree with them, I just don’t want to make it seem as though they originated from me in anyway besides me using the copy/paste buttons lol.

    • tobias

      Yeah, I’m checking out the site now, though I’m leaving the computer now. I’ll dig into it some more later. Thanks again!


    • lisakaay

      My question is this…

      How does Christ escape the taint of Adam’s sin? Orthodoxy dictates that he was fully man. Yet, he was able to atone for our sin by living a sinless life. But what about “original sin”? Maybe one of you can help me with that one.

    • Lisa R

      I believe the sin is passed down through the seed and he was born of a virgin. II Cor 5:21 says “He made him who knew no sin to be sin our behalf so that we may become the righteousness of God” . I think not knowing sin means it was not present in his being, as it is in ours.

    • […] the last post we discussed the problem of Original Sin, especially from an Evangelical Reformed perspective. Are […]

    • JoanieD

      To lisakaay, I would say: Jesus, being fully human, still was subject to temptation and COULD have chosen to sin. If he was not capable of choosing, then he would not have been fully human. But he CHOSE not to sin and instead chose to always live in accordance with God’s will, even when that will lead to the pain of being whipped and crucified. His perfect human will “intermeshed” with the Spirit of God within him opened up the kingdom of heaven to all people.

      I don’t understand all the workings of this and I don’t think we can ever fully understand it. And remember, I am not one of the students of this Reclaiming the Mind online school. I “self-study” and was brought up Catholic but investigated many of the other Christian churches and also looked in to Buddhism and Hinduism but always came back to Jesus as the one that could be trusted and loved because of his love for us.

      Joanie D.

    • […] I will finish my series on imputation […]

    • […] three blogs on this subject compel us to believe that we are held guilty for the sin of Adam: see part 1, part 2, part […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.