Sin inherited from the father -- origins of this belief?

[PaulGH]

Hello,

In discussions on other forums, I have at least twice encountered a belief that we inherit our “sin nature” (what Catholics would call a fallen nature or original sin) from Adam, through our fathers, but not through our mothers. In other words, Adam passed this “sin nature” to his children, and then his male children passed this nature to their children, and then their male children passed it to their chidren, etc. In both cases when I have encountered this belief, the person putting forth this belief was either a Baptist or a non-Catholic in a tradition somewhat similar to the Baptist tradition (e.g., one who might self-identify as an Evangelical, or as a Bible Christian, or as a non-denominational Christian).

Furthermore, those who have stated this belief say that because humans inherit a “sin nature” from their father, this is why Jesus is without sin, because God is his father, rather than him having a human father. Also, whenever I have seen someone put forth this belief, they have also tied this in with a rejection of the Immaculate Conception – i.e., saying that this somehow shows that Mary could not have been without sin, or at least that she did not need to be without sin (because Christ would not have inherited her sin anyway, since they claim that sin is not inherited from the mother).

However, I don’t really see this belief as having anything at all to do with the Immaculate Conception, since Catholic belief does *not *say that if Mary had sinned, then Christ would have necessarily inherited her fallen nature. (If this were true, then it would mean that Mary’s parents would have had to be sinless, and also their parents, etc.) Also, if Christ could not inherit sin from his mother, then really this belief about sin being passed on through the father doesn’t say anything one way or the other about whether Mary was or was not sinless.

I’ve even seen the following statement made, in conjunction with stating the belief about sin being passed by the father, but I don’t really understand the logic behind this statement:

“If the conception of Mary was immaculate, and was not like every other natural decendant of Adam, then we’re all still dead in our sins.”

So that is all background information, leading up to my real questions, which are as follows:

1. 
   *]Where did this belief (of our sinful nature being inherited only from our father) come from – Biblically and/or historically?
   *]Is this belief supported by the Bible, and if so, what passages are used to support this belief?
   *]Does the Catholic Church teach this, about original sin being inherited specifically from the father, and not from the mother? (I don’t think that it does, but maybe I’m mistaken.)
   *]Did this belief come about simply as a way to deny the Immaculate Conception? Or more accurately, did this belief come about as a way to deny a misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception (since it would seem to refute the Immaculate Conception only if Catholics believed that Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, which we don’t believe)?
   
   I’m not looking to start a debate on this issue, though I won’t necessarily shy away from one if it begins. My main focus in starting this thread is just to understand where this belief comes from, both Biblically and historically. Responses from Christians who hold this belief would be especially welcome and appreciated.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   Paul

 

[LilyM]

There are numerous references in the OT about God punishing children for the sins of their parents to the thousandth generation for one thing.

Then there’s St Paul who explicitly says sin entered the world through Adam and that all of us since have been subject to it. All have sinned, as is so often pointed out to us Catholics as alleged proof that Mary did too.

Now we know that babies or those who mentally aren’t of what we call the age of reason, and certainly aren’t capable of personal sin. They, however, aren’t excluded from Paul’s statement, nor from the necessity of being ‘saved’.

Baptism is required for all to cleanse all of sin - Jesus didn’t ask the Apostles to baptise only adults of sound mind, nor are they or their early Christian followers recorded as only having baptised some of those who chose to follow them, but entire households (including infants).

So the question is - what is it that babies and the mentally incapable are cleansed of in baptism?

And the answer for us is what we call ‘original sin’. Which is a somewhat confusing term, it doesn’t equate to anything that a person themselves has actually done wrong, that is personal sin.

The term ‘original sin’ means that we are all born with an inclination or tendency towards sin, an innate ‘knowledge of evil’, (remember that was what the fruit of the tree gave!) Not that we all necessarily practice evil, since some do not attain the necessary mental faculties to do so.

As for your question about Adam and Eve - of course it came from both of them. They were both complicit in the original fall of mankind.

This is why as Catholics we believe certainly that Christ, the perfect sinless man, had to redeem us from the fall of Adam. But also that Mary, the perfect sinless woman, was necessary to co-operate in His salvation in the way Eve cooperated with Adam’s sin.

 

[1ke]

I have no idea what groups teach this idea, nor where it came from. I have not heard this particular idea before.

No this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[dessert]

Here is a link about original sin

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

I believe we inherited a flaw to our nature that had been perfect at first when God created Adam as he was made good but Adam’s choice created the flaw.

Adam was not created with the sin, does this make sense?
D.

 

[dessert]

There are numerous references in the OT about God punishing children for the sins of their parents to the thousandth generation for one thing.

Then there’s St Paul who explicitly says sin entered the world through Adam and that all of us since have been subject to it. All have sinned, as is so often pointed out to us Catholics as alleged proof that Mary did too.**
Yes let me expound on this if I may, Romans 5;12
Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin,and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned__ _

The death is from the sin. Adam’s father God was perfect and did not hand down the sin to Adam, the tendency to sin is the choice.**

Now we know that babies or those who mentally aren’t of what we call the age of reason, and certainly aren’t capable of personal sin. They, however, aren’t excluded from Paul’s statement, nor from the necessity of being ‘saved’.

Baptism is required for all to cleanse all of sin - Jesus didn’t ask the Apostles to baptise only adults of sound mind, nor are they or their early Christian followers recorded as only having baptised some of those who chose to follow them, but entire households (including infants).**
Yes all should be baptized even infants let me give you a case.
We can inherit some flaws in our genetic makeup.
Let’s say your mother is diabetic and you get this as young child so it can lead to serious complications sugar diabetes, in your life including a tendency towards alcoholism, a possible loss of control leading to sin.
Also my SIL, inherited through no fault of her own the RH factor, her mother had it so she had serious complications with her pregnancies the second child died, a boy at the age of 3. He had been baptised and was a sweet boy and did not do anything but be born inheriting this flaw in his genes.**

follow with v.15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man. Jesus Christ, overflow to the many. 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of one man’s sin… but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
I have been reading Paul a lot lately and loving his wisdom.
Good post Lily M.
D.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

New Advent dot com>Holy Bible>Romans:
5:12. Wherefore as by one man* sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt
*By one man… Adam, from whom we all contracted original sin.

 

[PaulGH]

Thanks to everyone for the responses so far!

Here is a link about original sin

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

I believe we inherited a flaw to our nature that had been perfect at first when God created Adam as he was made good but Adam’s choice created the flaw.

Adam was not created with the sin, does this make sense?
D.

Yes, but this is not quite what I am asking. And I realize that I meandered quite a bit in my original post, so I don’t blame you if you didn’t get the point I was driving at. I understand and agree with what you said about the meaning of original sin in the quote above, and that original sin is inherited from Adam.

But what I am confused about is the specific belief that each person inherits original sin from their father, not from their mother, or not from both parents equally. This seems to go beyond saying that we inherit sin from Adam (which I would agree with), by adding an additional belief regarding the exact mechanics of how original sin is passed on from one generation to the next.

So what I’m asking is where the belief in this exact mechanism of passing on original sin from one generation to the next came from.

Thanks,

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

New Advent dot com>Holy Bible>Romans:
5:12. Wherefore as by one man* sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt
*By one man… Adam, from whom we all contracted original sin.

OK, I can see how maybe this passage would lend some weak support to the belief that original sin is passed from each generation to the next through the father, and not through the mother, or not through both parents. However, I had considered this verse already, and my conclusion was that it seems to say only that all of humanity has inherited sin from Adam. It may imply that sin is inherited through the father in each generation (or then again, it may not), but it doesn’t come right out and say this.

To illustrate my point, consider that my mom and my dad are both descended from Adam. Therefore, couldn’t I inherit original sin from Adam through either one of them, or perhaps even from both of them? The passage quoted above does not seem to require that I would have inherited original sin only from my father, because I could have inherited original sin from Adam through my mother as well (at least hypothetically).

So are there any other Bible verses that people who subscribe to this belief use to back it up? Or does this belief indeed come only from the passage quoted above? (If so, that’s fine. I’m not trying to argue here; but I’m just trying to dig deeper, since the passage above doesn’t seem sufficient to support this belief.)

By the way, I’m now starting to get the impression that maybe this is a rather uncommon belief. And as I mentioned, I have encountered it only twice. But I had the impression that this belief was fairly common in Protestant circles, since both of those times, no other Protestant on the forum that I was reading ever challenged this belief.

Again, any further information would be welcomed, and thanks for all of the insights so far.

Paul

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Romans 8:3 says “likeness of sinful flesh” not “fulness of sinful flesh” If Jesus was born with a sin nature it would be fulness of sinful flesh, not likeness of sinful flesh.

It is this distinction and others that teach that sin nature is passed down through the father.

The scriptures says the sins of the father is passed down, it does not in the original hebrew says the sins of the mother are passed down.

 

[Montalban]

Catholics and Orthodox both say that sin entered the world with Adam’s act of defiance.

However we differ in how sin is transmitted. Catholics say it is transmitted through generation - that is, by the biological act. It’s akin to a genetic disease being passed down - inherited.

Orthodox say sin exists in fallen nature, and that we’re born into this fallen nature. Akin to their being a poisonous gas that’s in the area you’re born into - and you’re affected by it.

 

[PaulGH]

Daniel,

Thank you very much for your response. I have some further questions for you though:

Romans 8:3 says “likeness of sinful flesh” not “fulness of sinful flesh” If Jesus was born with a sin nature it would be fulness of sinful flesh, not likeness of sinful flesh.

It is this distinction and others that teach that sin nature is passed down through the father.

I’m afraid that I don’t understand how the distinction that you mention (between the fullness of sinful flesh and the likeness of sinful flesh) has anything to do with whether sinful nature is transmitted by the father, or by the mother, or by both parents, or perhaps simply as something that’s sort of “in the air” (referencing Montalban’s poisonous gas analogy). How exactly does this distinction between the fullness of sinful flesh and the likeness of sinful flesh tell us anything about the mechanism of how sinful nature is passed from one generation to the next? Could you please elaborate on this?

The scriptures says the sins of the father is passed down, it does not in the original hebrew says the sins of the mother are passed down.

This sounds like part of what I am looking for. Do you have references to any specific passages in Scripture?

Thanks,

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

Thanks again for the responses so far. Let me summarize what I am understanding at this point, subject to correction:

It seems that most Christians (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) agree that we all are subject to some type of fallen nature, or sinful nature, or original sin, which in some way comes to us as a result of Adam’s sin (or perhaps as a result of Adam’s and Eve’s sin). Some form of this belief seems to be supported by Romans 5:12, and possibly by other Biblical passages as well.

However, it appears that we have some differing beliefs when it comes to exactly how Adam’s sin leads to us all being subject to a fallen nature, or a sinful nature, or original sin. It seems that there are at least six possible beliefs on this question:

(1) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her father (but not from his or her mother), going all the way back to Adam (and/or Eve).
(2) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her mother (but not from his or her father), going all the way back to Eve (and/or Adam).
(3) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her father and mother, going all the way back to Adam and Eve.
(4) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from one or both of his or her parents, but we just don’t know exactly how this happens. It could be (1), (2), or (3) above, or perhaps some other way that we haven’t thought of, but we just don’t know, nor do we need to know.
(5) Each person commits sin because he or she is born into a fallen nature, with this fallen nature being sort of like a poisonous gas in the air all around us. But we do not inherit this fallen nature from our parents.
(6) Any of the above could be true, or the true answer could be something different entirely. We just don’t know, nor do we need to know.

It seems to me that Catholics generally would hold to option (4) or (6), or perhaps (5), while at least some (maybe most?) Orthodox would hold to something like (5). And at least some Protestants would hold to something like (1). I don’t think anyone believes (2), but I listed it just for the sake of completeness.

Is the above a fair summary? And if so, I still would appreciate any further light that can be shed on belief (1), as stated in the questions in my original post.

Paul

 

[LilyM]

Thanks again for the responses so far. Let me summarize what I am understanding at this point, subject to correction:

It seems that most Christians (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) agree that we all are subject to some type of fallen nature, or sinful nature, or original sin, which in some way comes to us as a result of Adam’s sin (or perhaps as a result of Adam’s and Eve’s sin). Some form of this belief seems to be supported by Romans 5:12, and possibly by other Biblical passages as well.

However, it appears that we have some differing beliefs when it comes to exactly how Adam’s sin leads to us all being subject to a fallen nature, or a sinful nature, or original sin. It seems that there are at least six possible beliefs on this question:

(1) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her father (but not from his or her mother), going all the way back to Adam (and/or Eve).
(2) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her mother (but not from his or her father), going all the way back to Eve (and/or Adam).
(3) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from his or her father and mother, going all the way back to Adam and Eve.
(4) Each person inherits a sinful nature or original sin from one or both of his or her parents, but we just don’t know exactly how this happens. It could be (1), (2), or (3) above, or perhaps some other way that we haven’t thought of, but we just don’t know, nor do we need to know.
(5) Each person commits sin because he or she is born into a fallen nature, with this fallen nature being sort of like a poisonous gas in the air all around us. But we do not inherit this fallen nature from our parents.
(6) Any of the above could be true, or the true answer could be something different entirely. We just don’t know, nor do we need to know.

It seems to me that Catholics generally would hold to option (4) or (6), or perhaps (5), while at least some (maybe most?) Orthodox would hold to something like (5). And at least some Protestants would hold to something like (1). I don’t think anyone believes (2), but I listed it just for the sake of completeness.

Is the above a fair summary? And if so, I still would appreciate any further light that can be shed on belief (1), as stated in the questions in my original post.

Paul

Catholics could only ever hold to 3 - we KNOW it’s something inherited and we KNOW that it’s from both our parents going back to Adam and Eve.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Paul, my argument has more to do with the flow of Romans, maybe looking for an outline of the arguements made in Romans is in order. Basically, sin entered the world through Adam, and the second Adam made salvation avilable. In biblical context it is men who had authority over the tribes not women, thus generational or enviromental passing on of sin is through those with authority, men. Not through those without such authority, women.

But, a revelent passage from Tertullian seens to put the whole discussion to bed,

Chapter 16. Christ’s Flesh in Nature, the Same as Ours, Only Sinless. The Difference Between Carnem Peccati and Peccatum Carnis: It is the Latter Which Christ Abolished. The Flesh of the First Adam, No Less Than that of the Second Adam, Not Received from Human Seed, Although as Entirely Human as Our Own, Which is Derived from It

The famous Alexander, too, instigated by his love of disputation in the true fashion of heretical temper, has made himself conspicuous against us; he will have us say that Christ put on flesh of an earthly origin, in order that He might in His own person abolish sinful flesh. Now, even if we did assert this as our opinion, we should be able to defend it in such a way as completely to avoid the extravagant folly which he ascribes to us in making us suppose that the very flesh of Christ was in Himself abolished as being sinful; because we mention our belief (in public), that it is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven; and we further declare that it will come again from thence in all the pomp of the Father’s glory: it is therefore just as impossible for us to say that it is abolished, as it is for us to maintain that it is sinful, and so made void, since in it there has been no fault. We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”—not the material thing, but its condition; not the substance, but its flaw; and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.” Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned, because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,—resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in man was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless. A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father, let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.

newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

What is your understanding of what Tertullian wrote?

 

[swariffin]

Catholics and Orthodox both say that sin entered the world with Adam’s act of defiance.

However we differ in how sin is transmitted. Catholics say it is transmitted through generation - that is, by the biological act. It’s akin to a genetic disease being passed down - inherited.

Orthodox say sin exists in fallen nature, and that we’re born into this fallen nature. Akin to their being a poisonous gas that’s in the area you’re born into - and you’re affected by it.

Dear Montalban,

As far as I am tought, the original sin previously was related to a biological act of transmission. As of today, I think, the RC scholar think that the original sin is not a sort of a result of an action. The original sin is rather simply means a condition in which one is beyond the will and love of God. As the

 

[swariffin]

Catholics and Orthodox both say that sin entered the world with Adam’s act of defiance.

However we differ in how sin is transmitted. Catholics say it is transmitted through generation - that is, by the biological act. It’s akin to a genetic disease being passed down - inherited.

Orthodox say sin exists in fallen nature, and that we’re born into this fallen nature. Akin to their being a poisonous gas that’s in the area you’re born into - and you’re affected by it.

Dear Montalban,

As far as I am tought, the original sin previously was related to a biological act of transmission. As of today, I think, the RC scholar think that the original sin is not a sort of a result of an action. The original sin is rather simply means a condition in which one is beyond the will and love of God. Also, the Paradise is not defined as a “place”, but rather as a “condition within God’s will and love”. So, as the first human sin, they were no longer within God’s will and love, and “expelled” from Paradise. As the first human get the offsprings outside the Paradise, that is why we the decendent are called to be born under the original sin. It means that we were born outside the Paradise. Please let me share your view. Somehow my view, I believe, is close to yours

 

[PaulGH]

Hi Daniel,

Thanks very much for your follow-up on this.

Hi Paul, my argument has more to do with the flow of Romans, maybe looking for an outline of the arguements made in Romans is in order. Basically, sin entered the world through Adam, and the second Adam made salvation avilable. In biblical context it is men who had authority over the tribes not women, thus generational or enviromental passing on of sin is through those with authority, men. Not through those without such authority, women.

I see your point. I’m not sure that I find it convincing, but I appreciate the explanation.

But, a revelent passage from Tertullian seens to put the whole discussion to bed,

…]

newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

What is your understanding of what Tertullian wrote?

I’m not trying to argue with you here, because my purpose in creating this thread was to gain information, rather than to have a debate. But I don’t see how this passage puts the whole discussion to bed, unless I just completely missed something. It seems to me that your reasoning based on this passage is something like the following:

(A) We have all received a corrupted or sinful nature from Adam (according to Tertullian, and also according to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans).

Therefore,

(B) this corrupted or sinful nature must have been transmitted from generation to generation by way of fathers, rather than by both parents or by some other mechanism entirely.

Of course I agree with (A), but where I’m getting stuck is that I don’t see how (A) necessarily implies (B).

Paul

 

[Miserissima]

Hi, Paul!

It is my understanding that it’s an ancient Jewish belief, but I am not sure if it came as an influence of an invading culture or if there’s a definite particular branch of Judiasm which developed it.

There are four passages in the OT that speak of God “visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generations of those who hate God”: Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:8; Deuteronomy 5:9. And from the NT, it was a popular idea, though Jesus contradicted it:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”John 9:2-3

Man’s sinful nature can be transmitted, but I do not believe that punishment for particular sins falls onto subsequent generations.
A while ago I read about Generational Curses and other “sins of the fathers” which come to bear on their children:

1. Generational Curses (sins of the Fathers)
2. Witchcraft Curses
3. Words & Curses Spoken
4. Ungodly Oaths and dedications
5. Open Doors caused by own personal sins
6. Curses Passed By TIES (YOKE) to other people/groups
7. Curses from Cursing others (from here)

I think the term you’re looking for is “generational curse,” like the “Jezebel Spirit” that some charismatic fundamentals purport to be resposible for distressing circumstances in which one may find himself.

I was on a message board once when someone came in and said all women with a particular disease were generationally cursed because they were under the influence of something called the Jezebel Spirit, and it happened because and that there was some woman in her past who practiced witchcraft. (Yeah, that didn’t go over too well!) She cited books like: Prepare For War and Unbroken Curses by Rebecca Brown, Overcoming the Spirit of Jezebel by Rick Joyner and Jezebel by Francis Frangipane.

I checked out the books; they were not enlightening to me, though I can see how people draw the conclusion that their ill fortune needs to be blamed on someone else.

This line of thinking even continues into the secular world today when people ask, “What did you do to deserve this to happen to you?” (That reminds me of the book of Job.)