Original Sin and Imputed Sin

Les --- Baptists refer to the "sin nature" as "blood poisoning." That is, Mary couldn't pass the nature to Jesus on account of her blood was not mixed with His in the womb (they travel parallel vessels to feed the embryo). It would have been Joseph's blood that transimitted the blood factor and which did to Jesus brothers.

BTW, we haven't factored out of the blood exactly what makes it "corrupt" but we know that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the KoG in heaven." That is, our blood has basic terrestrial needs which is probably the "fountain" of our instincts which IS the origins of sin is all since the fall.

skypair

 

Yes, I've heard that idea preached before. But, I'm not sure that I buy into it since Jesus would have gotten 1/2 of His genes from Mary, assuming He did come from one of her egg cells, combined with something from the Holy Spirit in place of the sperm cell from a man. Since our inherited traits aren't actually transmitted by the blood but by the genes we get from both parents in the embryo, the mother's and child's blood supply being isolated wouldn't really be a factor.

 

It would seem that way, wouldn't it.

Here's what I think really happened -- God probably supplied all that was needed to create His Son. Mary was the vessel, like the earth will be for the resurrected OT saints, from which God chose to bring forth Jesus. Thus, the "blood" not mixing would still be a consideration.

If you are at all familiar with this thought, you remember that Jesus said, "I am the resurrection..." He WAS!! He was brought forth in a human form totally by DNA + the Spirit just as if an OT saint were raised from his/her grave in the resurrection. God has the whole pattern and the Spirit supplies the life. Job 19:25-28, Ezek 37:12-14, Dan 12:2, Isa 26:19-21 all speak of this resurrection of OT saints where God supplies what they formerly were (ostensibly, through their DNA) and the Spirit revives it to life.

Jesus was born and reborn exactly like they will be! In fact, my follow-on application would be this -- the resurrected OT saints will not sin, will not marry, and will be Spirit-led like Christ was in His "terrestrial glory!"

skypair

 

If Jesus never got 1/2 of His genes from Mary then the blood line would of been broken. Mary had no brothers so therefore she inherited the blood line from her father and for Jesus to have the blood line of David, Mary would of had to supply her egg.

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

BBob,

 

I have not heard that expression, Skypair, but even if some Baptists do refer to the "sin nature" as "blood poisoning," (and I don't doubt they do - I've just never heard it), they are surely not saying that sin nature is a poisoning of the physical blood that is pumped through our veins and arteries. Otherwise we could get rid of our sin nature by a trip to the doctor. Though I agree with you that Jesus did not inherit a sin nature from Mary, I can't see that it has anything to do with her physiology, despite what you wrote in your "BTW".

 

Bro. RB,

Hope y'all are having a good weekend.

I think we see the "sin nature" very differently. It sounds like you regard it as something almost demonic in nature. Is that why you are so bothered by the idea that Jesus had the same ability to sin as any other man?

My take on it is that the sinful nature is pretty much the same as free will, the ability to either choose to do God's will or our will. In Jesus this ability was held under subjection by His total submission to the Father's will.

It seems to me that unless Jesus had the ability to sin, all that about Him being tempted just like us is just a sham.

Perhaps we need to wrestle with just what the sin nature is before we go on to something else?

I'm not aware of any passage that explicitly talks about Adam having a sin nature added to his makeup after the Fall to make him less able to resist temptation than he was before. The logical place for this to appear would be in Genesis when they are thrown out of the Garden and are now going to die. Of course, I could be wrong in this and just need to be shown the "smoking gun."

What do you think, should we pursue the concept of a sin nature first?

I'm sorry if my take on this disturbs you, sure didn't mean to do that.

Bro. Les

 

Well, Dr. Rogers taught that the blood wasn't mixed between woman and child. As to whether the woman's egg affects the blood, I don't know. Perhaps blood is totally determined by the sperm. However, they didn't have blood tests in those days so I assume that being born of Mary was considered to be in her line regardless of how she was impregnated, right?

In fact, isn't there a "rule" that if the mother is Israeli, then the child is Israeli regardless of the father's race?

I believe Dr. Rogers suggests that Adam and Eve were poisoned by the fruit. There was some effect of eyesight or perception of what was seen obivously.

As to "fixing" our blood --- we wouldn't know what to fix, would we. The only thing I know about bloodless bodies of "celestial glory" is that we won't need air to breathe but how would we fix that and would that even help? I'll trust God to pursue that part of it! :laugh:

skypair

 

Yes, I think you are correct about the Israeli mother thing.

Not sure if you'd call it poisoning or not, but it did have a definite effect.

From Gen. 3:

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Maybe this is the "sinful nature" Paul talks about, the ability to know good from evil?

Les

 

I think the really poignant part is that man came to know evil. In particular, the immediate gratification that evil gives. I almost imagine Adam taking a "hit" of marijuana and saying, "Wow!"

But like most sin, once you engage in it once, it is hard to resist the immediate reward for a future, unseen one. Nasty as some sin is, anyone who has tried it has liked it, hence the devil's uses those enticing words often -- even, it seems, with Eve.

skypair

 

Well the Law was that the inheritance is passed on to the male, but in the case where there is no male to pass it on to, then the female is considered the receptient of the inheritance. I guess the blood of the female was not even considered until Moses gave a law where if there were no males or brothers, then the daughter received the inheritance, including "blood line", of course if she was Israelite.

Of Course we have scripture for the linage back to David, which had to be Mary, who had no brothers. Whether God provided everything and according to the Law of linage, it went back to David, I do not know. Its possible.

 

I'm not really sure we can call that scripture from Genesis a smoking gun. Sure, I can agree that from an early age we all have the capacity to do evil, to follow our will and not God's will, but Adam apparently had the same capacity. He only had ONE command to keep, and he wouldn't even do that.

The use of hyperbole may be part of our problem here too. Maybe God is exaggerating to some extent to make a point. He also says he smote "every" living thing, which obviously He didn't, as Noah and his family survived, as well as all the animals, and I assume fish and other sea creatures.

If we had a clear passage from Genesis 3 at the time of the Fall that indicated man acquired a sin nature, then this passage could be more easily interpreted to be referring to something like that.

Maybe we need to start with the account of the Fall?

Les

 

Romans 5:12
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Cor 15:22
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Here it is rather clear that by one man sin entered into the world, that man being Adam. The result is death, immediately the spiritual death of Adam and subsequently the physical death of Adam (In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Or “dying you shall die” the double death referring to both the spiritual death and eventual physical death).

If infants are not sinners, if they are born without a sin nature, then why is it they die? Adam died as a result of sin. How does one explain these alleged non-sin nature infants and toddlers dying? Death is for sinners, the unrighteous. Death was passed upon sinners and it is quite clear infants die all the time.

 

We all inherit the physical death penalty from Adam. That is why infants and toddlers die but don't go to hell, at least I don't belive that they do. If we really believe that infants have sin imputed to them from conception, or from birth, then we have to have them sentenced to hell. I can't buy that.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

 

Les here again - We still have the freedom to do what is good and right, not perfectly enough to justify ourselves compared to God's standard of perfection, but surely you recognize the differences among truly evil people (say like Jezebel) and those who at least try to live a rightous life? (like Hezekiah, perhaps) If we are truly totally evil from the moment of birth we would have something like a hell right here on earth.

 

You are right...we all sinned in the same manner as Adam...by disobeying God's Law as he did, not by being born.