How to deal with Christ not inheriting Mary's sin nature

[JohnDeereFan]

Say "far" again. Makes it seen a little nearer.

Try reading the Qu'ran.

Read some Watchtower literature.
Book of Mormon.

Go debate with 100 people, in the public arena, strangers, who you meet in everyday life.
Then go running back to the Scriptures, to answer every question posed to you, that you did not have a scriptural response ready for.

Right now, you are letting your questions be asked and answered by some small group of men.
You are being tricked into believing that you are learning, when in actuality you are being retarded.

Learn organically, persuading the lost, interacting with the Holy Spirit, contending for the faith.

You become the teacher. What need have you more of these Men?

I have need of them because they possess Godly wisdom and knowledge that comes from age and study of the scriptures.

 

[Scarlett O.]

When it is said that death passed upon all men, what is being described is not the addition of something, but the lack thereof. Adam didn't gain something in death, he lost something, and that thing was life. Not having it, it is impossible for him to pass it to his children.

Mary didn't have it either. So the answer given above, that "He's God," is the correct answer to the question in the OP. His life is in Himself.

So the meaning and the purpose of the Virgin Birth is something other than necessity. God could have made a body for His Son "in the family way," if He so willed. The Virgin Birth has nothing to do with Christ's sinlessness or His divinity. The Virgin Birth was a sign. A miraculous sign, yes, but only a sign.

That's the proverbial answer in a nutshell.

The sin nature isn't a material thing to be passed along genetically like brown hair or Huntington's disease.

Jesus inherited Mary's DNA. He had to. One cannot survive without mitochondrial DNA from the mother. I used to tell my science students that mtDNA is like the energy source for the cell - the battery if you will.

Without this genetic code, a organism from conception .... would never grow or develop. It would be like trying to bake cookies in the oven, but the oven won't come on. Or like trying to blow dry your hair without plugging the device in. No mtDNA - no life. Perhaps this is why Eve was called the mother of "all" the living. She isn't my mother or your mother, but her mtDNA lives in us all today (with mutations of course).

Men have mtDNA, too, obviously or they wouldn't be alive. They just don't pass it on to offspring. What negligible amount is contained in the sperm cell is found in the tail and is used for "swimming". There's some debate about whether the tail is dead when broken off or when absorbed if the tail is earmarked for destruction by the egg cell because it's not needed anymore. Answers for this are not 100% agreed upon.

I'm digressing.

Jesus came from the "seed" of Mary, just as foretold. I believe that Jesus, on this earth, was 100% human and 100% God simultaneously. If so, his human body would not function without Mary's mtDNA.

And as Aaron said, the purpose of this Virgin Birth was for a miraculous sign.

Since Jesus inherited Mary's DNA, the sin nature of a human cannot be passed along genetically.

Jesus had no sin nature - else He would have been born with a defect. He was tempted, yes. And He did not sin. Adam didn't have a sin nature either to begin with - else he would have been created with a defect. He was tempted and failed and lost his life (eventually) because of it. Jesus is called the second Adam. Jesus was tempted and was victorious.

The Bible says that through Adam sin entered the world. It has been born "into" every descendant of his - which is everybody - including Mary. How did Jesus escape the sin nature then?

Some believe that the sin nature comes from the father and because Jesus had no earthly father, he conveniently avoided it.

I can't go there. It completely "excuses" (for lack of a better notion) Mary's own grievous state of sin. She was a filthy sinner just like the rest of us - in desperate need of a Savior. I know that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception - Mary's being conceived without sin and her being sinless, but we all know that doesn't hold water.

Have you all ever thought that maybe we hold on to the idea that we get our sin nature from our biological dads as a defense against the Catholic teaching that Mary was sinless? I mean if Mary was a sinner (which she was) then sin being passed down biologically speaking from from ONLY our dads would solve that problem of falsely making her sinless. Sort of like this:

Catholic: "Mary was sinless."
Protestant: "No, she wasn't. She sinned like all of us."
Catholic: "Then how did Jesus escape inheriting a sin nature?"
Protestant: (Thinking really hard!!!) "Well, since Adam is responsible for the human race being tainted by sin we must inherit a sin nature from our dads. So... since Jesus didn't have a dad, he's sinless. Yeah, that's it!!"

God held Adam accountable for the fallen nature of mankind. But it doesn't meant that Adam's own personal sin corrupted his children and Eve's did not.

I was not born a sinner because my father sins. I was born a sinner because Adam sinned and Eve sinned and God held Adam responsible for the human race being tainted. My own father's sins have nothing to do with mine being in existence. I was tainted with sin when I was conceived. I am a sinner because of Adam, not my dad (who while a great man, IS a sinner, too).

Jesus was not corrupted by a sin nature.

He couldn't be. It would have been impossible even if God had Jesus ushered into this life via the normal way of having babies.

Jesus is God's Son. Jesus is also GOD. God cannot sin. Ergo, Jesus - no matter form He chooses to exist in - cannot sin.

The miracle was not only that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that He, as God's Son and as God, bypassed the corruption of sin in a fleshly body because of His supernatural and miraculous perfection and holiness.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

The sin nature is inherited through the father (Rom 5). Christ did not have a human father. Ergo, no sin nature.

Now, when you say "deal with", is there a particular question you have in mind?

Not really, it was posed to me as a question and I actually had not thought about it before

 

[Amy.G]

Some believe that the sin nature comes from the father and because Jesus had no earthly father, he conveniently avoided it.

I can't go there. It completely "excuses" (for lack of a better notion) Mary's own grievous state of sin.

No it wouldn't excuse her state of sin because Mary did have an earthly father.

 

[Scarlett O.]

No it wouldn't excuse her state of sin because Mary did have an earthly father.

Let me rephrase that, Amy. :laugh:

Believing that sin is only inherited literally from our dads would excuse Mary from being an influence of sin - inherited or otherwise - upon her children. And don't believe she is excusable.

I think Jesus saw Mary sin and it grieved him.

 

[Winman]

That's the proverbial answer in a nutshell.

The sin nature isn't a material thing to be passed along genetically like brown hair or Huntington's disease.

Jesus inherited Mary's DNA. He had to. One cannot survive without mitochondrial DNA from the mother. I used to tell my science students that mtDNA is like the energy source for the cell - the battery if you will.

Without this genetic code, a organism from conception .... would never grow or develop. It would be like trying to bake cookies in the oven, but the oven won't come on. Or like trying to blow dry your hair without plugging the device in. No mtDNA - no life. Perhaps this is why Eve was called the mother of "all" the living. She isn't my mother or your mother, but her mtDNA lives in us all today (with mutations of course).

Men have mtDNA, too, obviously or they wouldn't be alive. They just don't pass it on to offspring. What negligible amount is contained in the sperm cell is found in the tail and is used for "swimming". There's some debate about whether the tail is dead when broken off or when absorbed if the tail is earmarked for destruction by the egg cell because it's not needed anymore. Answers for this are not 100% agreed upon.

I'm digressing.

Jesus came from the "seed" of Mary, just as foretold. I believe that Jesus, on this earth, was 100% human and 100% God simultaneously. If so, his human body would not function without Mary's mtDNA.

And as Aaron said, the purpose of this Virgin Birth was for a miraculous sign.

Since Jesus inherited Mary's DNA, the sin nature of a human cannot be passed along genetically.

Jesus had no sin nature - else He would have been born with a defect. He was tempted, yes. And He did not sin. Adam didn't have a sin nature either to begin with - else he would have been created with a defect. He was tempted and failed and lost his life (eventually) because of it. Jesus is called the second Adam. Jesus was tempted and was victorious.

The Bible says that through Adam sin entered the world. It has been born "into" every descendant of his - which is everybody - including Mary. How did Jesus escape the sin nature then?

Some believe that the sin nature comes from the father and because Jesus had no earthly father, he conveniently avoided it.

I can't go there. It completely "excuses" (for lack of a better notion) Mary's own grievous state of sin. She was a filthy sinner just like the rest of us - in desperate need of a Savior. I know that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception - Mary's being conceived without sin and her being sinless, but we all know that doesn't hold water.

Have you all ever thought that maybe we hold on to the idea that we get our sin nature from our biological dads as a defense against the Catholic teaching that Mary was sinless? I mean if Mary was a sinner (which she was) then sin being passed down biologically speaking from from ONLY our dads would solve that problem of falsely making her sinless. Sort of like this:

Catholic: "Mary was sinless."
Protestant: "No, she wasn't. She sinned like all of us."
Catholic: "Then how did Jesus escape inheriting a sin nature?"
Protestant: (Thinking really hard!!!) "Well, since Adam is responsible for the human race being tainted by sin we must inherit a sin nature from our dads. So... since Jesus didn't have a dad, he's sinless. Yeah, that's it!!"

God held Adam accountable for the fallen nature of mankind. But it doesn't meant that Adam's own personal sin corrupted his children and Eve's did not.

I was not born a sinner because my father sins. I was born a sinner because Adam sinned and Eve sinned and God held Adam responsible for the human race being tainted. My own father's sins have nothing to do with mine being in existence. I was tainted with sin when I was conceived. I am a sinner because of Adam, not my dad (who while a great man, IS a sinner, too).

Jesus was not corrupted by a sin nature.

He couldn't be. It would have been impossible even if God had Jesus ushered into this life via the normal way of having babies.

Jesus is God's Son. Jesus is also GOD. God cannot sin. Ergo, Jesus - no matter form He chooses to exist in - cannot sin.

The miracle was not only that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that He, as God's Son and as God, bypassed the corruption of sin in a fleshly body because of His supernatural and miraculous perfection and holiness.

This was a great post, even if I don't agree with it 100%. :tongue3:

Jesus got his "flesh" from Mary. God does not have flesh, God is spirit.

Jesus's flesh tempted him just like our flesh tempts us. This is what many folks call the sin nature.

Being tempted is not sinful. It is when a person chooses to obey the flesh when it trangresses God's law that a person becomes sinful.

Eve had the three worldly lusts BEFORE she sinned.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve saw the tree of knowledge was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh.

She saw it was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes.

She saw it was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

These are the three kinds of lust shown in 1 John 2:16;

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Eve had these worldly lusts BEFORE she sinned. Was she sinful at this point? NO! Eve was not sinful until she actually took the forbidden fruit and ate it. Sin is something you DO. Sin is a CHOICE.

If Eve had walked away, she would not have been a sinner.

Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, but he never obeyed these fleshly lusts.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus came in our exact same flesh;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus did not come in some special flesh, he came in the same flesh we all are born with, and he was subject to our same weaknesses and lusts.

Jesus had our same nature;

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus did not have the nature of Adam, he had the nature of Abraham who was born after the fall. He was made like his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

So, if Jesus had a sin nature (I deny this), then we are born with a sin nature too.

Jesus was also the "fruit" of David's loins;

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Jesus was "made" of the "seed" of David according to the "flesh".

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

You are correct, Jesus got DNA from his mother Mary, and Mary's DNA contained DNA from David. So if sin is passed down genetically, Jesus would have been born a sinner just like all of us.

This is why I don't believe anyone is BORN a sinner. We become sinners when we willfully and knowingly choose to sin. Sin is not inherited.

 

[OldRegular]

How to deal with Christ not inheriting Mary's sin nature? Thoughts?

The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:14 that Eve was deceived but that Adam was not deceived implying he deliberately rebelled against God.

Whether this is the reason or not I don't know but apparently the sin nature is transmitted through the man, that is one reason for the Virgin Birth. In Genesis 3:15 we are told the Redeemer would be the seed of woman, another reason for the Virgin Birth.

 

[Winman]

The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:14 that Eve was deceived but that Adam was not deceived implying he deliberately rebelled against God.

Whether this is the reason or not I don't know but apparently the sin nature is transmitted through the man, that is one reason for the Virgin Birth. In Genesis 3:15 we are told the Redeemer would be the seed of woman, another reason for the Virgin Birth.

That is nothing but superstition without one word of support from scripture.

Jesus was born with the same flesh as us, he was born the same nature. He was the fruit of David's loins, and he was made of the "seed of David".

In fact, what was the most common name the Jews called Jesus? The "Son of David".

Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

The Jews understood that the Messiah or Christ had to be a physical descendant of king David.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

That is nothing but superstition without one word of support from scripture.

Actually, Romans 5 tells us that the sin nature is passed down through the father, not the mother.

 

[Winman]

Actually, Romans 5 tells us that the sin nature is passed down through the father, not the mother.

False, it says no such thing.

In fact, there is far more scripture to teach that sin is passed down by a woman than man;

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Now, I have just showed you two verses of scripture that both imply that no one born of a woman can be clean or righteous.

Now you show me ANY verse that says we get a sin nature from our father.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Van]

I see bits and pieces of truth in this thread.

Jesus did not have an earthly father because He was born of a virgin.
Was this simply a sign? No. It fulfilled prophecy.

Is our sin nature passed down physically by either our father or mother or both? No, our sin nature is passed down spiritually. When Adam sinned, both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, thus they both became corrupted. When God forms our human spirit within us, it is in a separated from God state, i.e. conceived in iniquity.

Romans 5:12, "Just as through one man sin entered into the world...."
Adam sinned and because of that sin, the many were made sinners. Thus through the sin of the one, the consequence is applied to the many. But this verse does not say how it spread, biologically or spiritually. However, since it spread to Eve not through biology. the evidence supports a spiritual transaction. The judgement arose from the sin of the one, but the condemnation (God's action) was applied to the many. So just as justification is a spiritual transaction, so is the condemnation.

 

[Winman]

I see bits and pieces of truth in this thread.

Jesus did not have an earthly father because He was born of a virgin.
Was this simply a sign? No. It fulfilled prophecy.

Is our sin nature passed down physically by either our father or mother or both? No, our sin nature is passed down spiritually. When Adam sinned, both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, thus they both became corrupted. When God forms our human spirit within us, it is in a separated from God state, i.e. conceived in iniquity.

Romans 5:12, "Just as through one man sin entered into the world...."
Adam sinned and because of that sin, the many were made sinners. Thus through the sin of the one, the consequence is applied to the many. But this verse does not say how it spread, biologically or spiritually. However, sin it spread to Eve not through biology. the evidence supports a spiritual transaction. The judgement arose from the sin of the one, but the condemnation (God's action) was applied to the many. So just as justification is a spiritual transaction, so is the condemnation.

Well, if you look it up, the term "were made" ( were made sinners) is kathistēmi which means to set in place, or to appoint, as when Jesus said he would "make" a faithful servant ruler over many cities.

Mat 24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

It is not saying Adam's sin will cause you to be BORN a sinner. It is saying that you will be appointed, assigned, or designated as a sinner. HUGE difference.

Whenever someone sins, they are appointed or assigned as a "sinner' just as Adam was, and the like punishment of "condemnation unto death" is assigned the person.

Likewise, when one trusts on Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father, that person is appointed, assigned, or imputed righteous.

Romans 5 is showing that both Adam and Jesus set "legal precedent" for certain actions. After Adam, everyone who sinned would likewise be constituted or designated as a "sinner" and the sentence of condemnation to death passes on them.

There is not one word in Romans 5 to support that men would be BORN sinners. That is a man made invention not supported by scripture.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

False, it says no such thing.

Well, at least you didn't insult me this time.

So, why should we believe your opinion that Romans 5 doesn't say sin entered the world through Adam and is passed down through the father?

In fact, there is far more scripture to teach that sin is passed down by a woman than man;

Job 15:14[/B] What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

OK. I'll bite: Where does this verse say that the sin nature is passed down through the mother?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Where does this verse say the sin nature comes through the mother?

Now, I have just showed you two verses of scripture that both imply that no one born of a woman can be clean or righteous.

No, actually, neither of those verses imply that. They just say that man is born of woman.

Now you show me ANY verse that says we get a sin nature from our father.

I did. You declared they didn't say that.

 

[Winman]

Well, at least you didn't insult me this time.

I didn't know that I insulted you the first time, my remark was to Evangelist.

But you are correct, I was insulting, so I apologize to him. Sincerely.

So, why should we believe your opinion that Romans 5 doesn't say sin entered the world through Adam and is passed down through the father?

Adam set the legal precedent for sin. Maybe this article will explain better than I can.

A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases.

The Anglo-American common-law tradition is built on the doctrine of Stare Decisis ("stand by decided matters"), which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it. This means that the legal rules applied to a prior case with facts similar to those of the case now before a court should be applied to resolve the legal dispute.

The use of precedent has been justified as providing predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. Reliance upon precedent contributes predictability to the law because it provides notice of what a person's rights and obligations are in particular circumstances. A person contemplating an action has the ability to know beforehand the legal outcome. It also means that lawyers can give legal advice to clients based on settled rules of law.

The use of precedent also stabilizes the law. Society can expect the law, which organizes social relationships in terms of rights and obligations, to remain relatively stable and coherent through the use of precedent. The need is great in society to rely on legal rules, even if persons disagree with particular ones. Justice louis d. brandeis emphasized the importance of this when he wrote, "Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right" (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 52 S. Ct. 443, 76 L. Ed. 815 [1932]).

After Adam, every man who sins gets the same judgment he received, death.

Likewise, when a person trusts Christ as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him up, we are all imputed righteous.

This is what Romans 5 is teaching.

In fact, there is far more scripture to teach that sin is passed down by a woman than man;

OK. I'll bite: Where does this verse say that the sin nature is passed down through the mother?

Where does this verse say the sin nature comes through the mother?

No, actually, neither of those verses imply that. They just say that man is born of woman.

You are CORRECT!! And that is exactly the point. None of these verses actually say you inherited a sin nature from your mother. But... it is easy to see how a person would misinterpret these verses to say so.

Are you following me?

And that is exactly how this superstition that we inherit a sin nature from our father started, there is not one verse in all the Bible to support that. Look and see for yourself. That is a man made invention.

I did. You declared they didn't say that.

No you didn't. There is not one word about being BORN a sinner in Romans 5. It does say that by Adam's disobedience many were "made sinners", but if you look that word up you will see it means to "appoint" or "assign" as a sinner.

"Sinner" is a legal term just like "felon". If you commit certain crimes, you are assigned as a "felon".

Because of Adam, when a person sins they are assigned or made "a sinner" and the sentence of death is given them. All men are treated fairly for sinning, Adam set the precedent. That is what Romans 5 is teaching.

There is not one word about being BORN a sinner in Romans 5 or anywhere else in scripture. You can't show it.

At least the verses I showed said "born", you can't even show that.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I didn't know that I insulted you the first time, my remark was to Evangelist.

Yes. You do it quite often when I say something you can't refute with your inside voice.

Adam set the legal precedent for sin. Maybe this article will explain better than I can.

The article you outsourced your answer to doesn't say anything about the text I asked you about.

This is what Romans 5 is teaching.

But that's not all Romans 5 says.

You are CORRECT!! And that is exactly the point. None of these verses actually say you inherited a sin nature from your mother. But... it is easy to see how a person would misinterpret these verses to say so.

Wait, so now you're saying you misinterpreted those verses you just said imply that Jesus inherited a sin nature through Mary?

And that is exactly how this superstition....

Your low view of scripture is duly noted.

...that we inherit a sin nature from our father started, there is not one verse in all the Bible to support that. Look and see for yourself. That is a man made invention.

I agree. Romans 5 is a man-made invention but the man who invented it invented it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

No you didn't.

Sorry, but "nuh-uh" stopped being a valid response when I was eight years old.

There is not one word about being BORN a sinner in Romans 5 or anywhere else in scripture. You can't show it.

Wrong again. See Ps 51:5.

At least the verses I showed said "born", you can't even show that.

I showed you verses that say "the". So what? Now, you're playing the same game the atheists play, where you demand that a verse not only support an idea, but that it do so according to your demands, and not simply according to context and grammar.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm wondering if any of you have read The Chemistry of the Blood by Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Dr. DeHaan was a medical doctor, but left his practice when he was called to preach. For years, he conducted the Radio Bible Class, and authored several books and tracts.

In The Chemistry of the Blood, he seeks to explain how Jesus could be born sinless to a sinful woman.

Here's the link. I'll be interested in what you think.
www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I'm wondering if any of you have read The Chemistry of the Blood by Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Dr. DeHaan was a medical doctor, but left his practice when he was called to preach. For years, he conducted the Radio Bible Class, and authored several books and tracts.

In The Chemistry of the Blood, he seeks to explain how Jesus could be born sinless to a sinful woman.

Here's the link. I'll be interested in what you think.
www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

I haven't. At least, I don't remember reading it. I used to get a lot of RBC materials.

I always thought Romans was pretty clear on it, so I never looked into any extra-Biblical sources.

 

[Winman]

I'm wondering if any of you have read The Chemistry of the Blood by Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Dr. DeHaan was a medical doctor, but left his practice when he was called to preach. For years, he conducted the Radio Bible Class, and authored several books and tracts.

In The Chemistry of the Blood, he seeks to explain how Jesus could be born sinless to a sinful woman.

Here's the link. I'll be interested in what you think.
www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

I read that MANY years ago when I didn't know better.

You receive DNA from both parents. One fourth of your DNA came from your mother's father. Jesus inherited David's DNA through Mary.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was "made" of the "seed of David" according to the "flesh". He had David's DNA.

This belief that Jesus avoided a sin nature because Mary was a virgin is pure superstition. The scriptures tell us exactly why Jesus was born of a virgin, it was a SIGN.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

No where do the scriptures teach that we inherit a sin nature from our father. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign.

If Mary had not been a virgin, then no one would have believed Jesus was the promised Son of God.

THAT is the purpose of being born of a virgin.

 

[Winman]

I haven't. At least, I don't remember reading it. I used to get a lot of RBC materials.

I always thought Romans was pretty clear on it, so I never looked into any extra-Biblical sources.

The word BORN appears only once in the book of Romans, and it was speaking of Jacob and Esau.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

This is the only time the word BORN is mentioned in the book of Romans, and it actually teaches that men are not born sinners. It says that Jacob and Esau had done no evil.

So, it wasn't the scriptures that taught you men are born sinners. You absolutely got that fallacy outside the scriptures.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The word BORN appears only once in the book of Romans, and it was speaking of Jacob and Esau.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

This is the only time the word BORN is mentioned in the book of Romans, and it actually teaches that men are not born sinners. It says that Jacob and Esau had done no evil.

So, it wasn't the scriptures that taught you men are born sinners. You absolutely got that fallacy outside the scriptures.

Psalm 51:5.