I disagree with your teaching that Adam’s sin is not inherited. If Adam’s sin isn’t inherited, why do all women experience pain during childbirth? Why do all men have to work hard to feed their families? We all share the punishment of Adam and Eve, so we all inherit their sin. The explanation is very simple and this isn’t the idea of Augustine or Calvin but from the Bible. Read Genesis 3:14-19.

If people are punished for their own sins, there would be no need for Jesus, and Christianity would become like Islam, in which, a prostitute of whipped 100 times and she is forgiven (and can enter heaven). Man’s sin is much greater than he can bear, that’s why God sent Christ to cleanse us, and only through the blood of Christ, we are offered eternal forgiveness. If you cannot accept Christ’s BIG sacrifice, I don’t think you’re teaching Christian theology.


Thank you for taking the time to write. However, I must point out that you have not proven your point. You have not shown a verse where God says that Adam's sins are inherited. You only argue that it must be the case because the punishment for Adam and Eve's sins is shared by all of mankind.

When a drunken driver plows into the car of a family going down the highway, the family shares in the consequence of the drunk's sins, even though they are not guilty of that man's sins. When David committed sin with Bathsheba, the child of that adulterous relationship died as a consequence of David's sin -- not his own sin. "However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die" (II Samuel 12:14). Yet, that child was innocent and David looked forward to being with the child in heaven one day. "But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (II Samuel 12:23). The nature of sin is that its consequences often extend far beyond the sphere of the person committing the sin.

Punishment for sin is never stated as a means of gaining forgiveness for those sins. Punishment is a deterrent. It is done to encourage a change. "For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness" (Hebrews 12:10). But punishment doesn't purchase forgiveness. Forgiveness is granted by God as a result of repentance from sin. As Israel was told, ""Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways," says the Lord GOD. "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD. "Therefore turn and live!"" (Ezekiel 18:30-32).

But this ability to gain forgiveness is only available because Jesus redeemed us by offering his own blood for our sins. "Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:18-19).

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).


Your gospel isn’t true because:

  • First, this is a denial of the biblical teaching that all mankind sinned in Adam, that is, Adam's sin has been imputed to the whole human race (Romans 5.12-14).
  • Second, this is a denial of the biblical teaching that the sin of man is imputed to Christ, that is, Christ became sin for us on Calvary's Cross (II Corinthians 5:21).
  • Third, this is a denial of the biblical teaching that the righteousness of God is imputed to men upon believing, that is, believers possess the righteousness of God (II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:15-19).

The above arguments show that sin can be passed from one person to another. Adam’s sins were passed to us, and our sins have been passed to Jesus, and only through His blood can we be redeemed.


"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come" (Romans 5:12-14).

Paul states that one man, Adam, opened the door to sin and death. But Paul does not state in this passage that sin and death are inherited; instead, he describes sin as spreading like a disease. He even states the reason why: "because all sinned." Your stance would require "because all were born." Further, Paul states everyone since is not necessarily guilty of the same sins as Adam. But if sin was inherited, we would be all guilty of the same sin. Further note that verse 13 states that sin is imputed because of law -- not inheritance. That is because sin is the breaking of law (I John 3:4). Therefore, I conclude that this passage does not support your point.

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (II Corinthians 5:20-21).

Your claim is that God ascribed or imputed our sins on to Christ. Since you say Adam's sins are imputed to us and therefore we are guilty of sin, to claim this in connection with Christ is to claim he was guilty of all men's sins. Yet to accomplish this, then the first half of the statement, "Him who knew no sin" would no longer be true. God making Jesus sin is a reference to the sin offerings. Jesus was made to be our sin-offering. Albert Barnes does a good job of analyzing this passage:

To be sin. The words "to be" are not in the original. Literally it is, "he has made him sin, or a sin-offering," (amartian epoihsen.) But what is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer --

(1.) It cannot be that he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be therefore, in some sense, figurative.

(2.) Nor can it mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connexion that he "knew no sin," and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled.

(3.) Nor can it mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty, it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings. But all such views as go to make the holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures. In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty. It is a corner-stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the Divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is prima facie a false view, and should be at once abandoned.

(4.) But if the declaration that he was made "sin" (amartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering -- an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner. The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson, (Lex.,) Bishop Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word "sin" (amartian) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin. Thus, Hosea 4:8. "They eat up the sin of, my people;" i.e., the sin-offerings. See Ezekiel 43:22; 44:29; 45:22,23,25. See Whitby's Notes on this verse. But whichever meaning is adopted, whether it means that he was a sacrifice for sin, or that God treated him as if he were a sinner, i.e., subjected him to sufferings which, if he had been personally a sinner, would have been a proper expression of his hatred of transgression, and a proper punishment for sin, in either case it means that he made an atonement; that he died for sin; that his death was not merely that of a martyr; but that it was designed by substituted sufferings to make reconciliation between man and God. Locke renders this, probably expressing the. true sense, "For God hath made him subject to suffering and death, the punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin." To me it seems probable that the sense is, that God treated him as if he had been a sinner; that he subjected him to such pains and woes as would have been a proper punishment if he had been guilty; that while he was, in fact, in all senses perfectly innocent, and while God knew this, yet that in consequence of the voluntary assumption of the place of man which the Lord Jesus took, it pleased the Father to lay on him the deep sorrows which would be the proper expression of his sense of the evil of sin; that he endured so much suffering, as would answer the same great ends in maintaining the truth, and honour, and justice of God, as if the guilty had themselves endured the penalty of the law. This, I suppose, is what is usually meant when it is said "our sins were imputed to him;" and though this language is not used in the Bible, and though it is liable to great misapprehension and perversion, yet if this is its meaning, there can be no objection to it.

You also use this passage in your third point to claim that believers possess the righteousness of God. Like the earlier phrase, it cannot mean that we literally hold God's righteousness. God has not sinned, so to have this literally would mean we would be without sin. Yet John warns, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (I John 1:8-10). Therefore, the proper way to read this is like before. Jesus didn't have sin when he died on the cross, but he was treated like a sinner to make atonement for our sins. As a result, God treats us as righteous even though we have sinned.

This passage does not state that sin literally transferred between man and Jesus or that the guilt of sin is transferred. It does not prove your point.

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:15-19).

I find it strange that the two passages you cite to claim that imputes righteousness upon man mentions neither imputing or faith. Such a passage does exist in Romans 4, but since you choose to use this passage, I will focus only on it.

The passage states that the condemnation of the world started with one man's sin. As noted in the prior verses, Adam opened the door to sin and death and it spread throughout all of mankind, not because of inheritance but because of everyone sinning. Jesus proved that people did not have to sin, nor was sin inherited because he was born into this world, yet lived without sin. Though sin is widespread, it is still there because of choice. Jesus did the opposite. By his one sacrifice justification is offered to everyone. Of course, acceptance of this gift is optional, just like sinning is actually optional, but it remains that justification is offered freely to everyone. If this passage stated that righteousness was passed to everyone then everyone would be without sin, an obvious falsehood. Thus this passage does not prove that righteous is passed.

I would suggest that you look up the word "imputed." You treat it as if it means something is passed from one person to another, yet that is not its definition. Impute means to consider a person as having some attribute even though he does not possess it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email