And how deep is Christ’s cleansing from it? The well-known definition of sin is “transgression of the law.” The one Greek word translated by that phrase in 1 John 3:4 is anomia, which means a state of enmity against God’s law, not merely an act. “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores” (Isa. 1:5, 6). “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5).

But Paul makes clear that the possession (or assumption) of a sinful nature is not itself sin. Many superficially assume that anyone who has a sinful nature must automatically participate in sin. It is true that all the fallen sons and daughters of Adam have done so, but it is not true of Him who “took on Him the seed of Abraham,” who “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” yet was “without sin.” And those who will “live in the sight of a holy God without a Mediator” through the time of trouble will still retain their “sinful flesh” while having overcome “even as [Christ] overcame” (cf. GC 425, 614, 623). Note how Paul emphasizes that sin is volition rather than genetic inheritance:

In time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom also we conducted ourselves in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph. 2:2-3).

Sin is not possessing a nature that is tempted by the “desires of our flesh.” It is “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” To argue otherwise is to support the “holy flesh” heresy:

The teaching given in regard to what is termed “holy flesh” is an error. All may obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh. … While we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul (GCB 1901, 419).

Because we have sinful flesh or nature, we know “desires” that arise from within our “flesh.”But nevertheless by the grace of Christ we can have “holy hearts”—we need not fulfill these “desires.” Those who “walk according to the course of this world,” the “children of disobedience,” who “conduct themselves … in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind … [are] by nature the children of wrath.” We are locked into “wrath” as the result of our choices of disobedience.

Some assume that if Christ “took” our sinful spiritual nature He would also be automatically “by nature a child of wrath,” and must die for His own sin. But this is not true if He “condemned sin in the flesh” and chose to say “no” to temptation. “All have sinned,” says Paul, that is “all” “fulfilled the desires of the flesh and of the [carnal] mind.” This gives us “propensities of sin” which Christ did not have because He did not “fulfill the desires of the flesh”:

Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. … His faith … did not waver for one mo ment. … On not one occasion was there a response to [Satan’s] manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan’s ground, to give him any advantage (5BC 1128, 1129).

This should explain Ellen White’s statement, “Not for onemoment was there in Him an evil propensity.” Our yielding to evil desires has pervaded every aspect of our being so that “from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness” in us. Not so with Him.

Anomia is almost always translated “iniquity” in the KJV, once as “unrighteousness.” Never is it used for the inheritance of a fallen, sinful nature. In 2 Corinthians 6:14 it is equated with unbelief (Romans 14:23 actually gives us a deeper definition of sin, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” and Christ’s faith never “wavered”). In Matthew 7:23 and 13:41 anomia is something which one works. In Matthew 23:28 it is hypocrisy. In Matthew 24:12 anomia is said to abound (pletho, from which we get our word “plethora”), something inappropriate to say of the sinful nature.

In all other places in the New Testament, anomia is volitional heart-rebellion against God. It depicts that heart attitude deep within the psychic recesses of the soul that is enmity against the law of God. That holy law is expressed as agape (Rom. 13:10; 8:7). If faith is understood as a heart-appreciation of agape, it must follow that sin is our profound, universal, natural-born heart-resistance to agape. Such anomia naturally bears fruit in disobedience to the law of God in purpose, feeling, thought, choice, and deed.

Ellen White also describes anomia as sinful “feelings and motives, as well as the outward acts. … The books of heaven record the sins that would have been committed had there been opportunity” (5BC 1085). This is a seething within, waiting only an opportunity to flare forth without. But this is volitional, and not to be equated with the inheritance of tendencies or a bent toward sin which can be denied or “condemned.” Note the following (the words expressing volition are emphasized):

The sin of evil speaking begins with the cherishing of evil thoughts. … An impure thought tolerated, an unholy desire cherished, and the soul is contaminated, its integrity compromised. … If we would not commit sin, we must shun its very beginnings. Every emotion and desire must be field in subjection to reason and conscience. Every unholy thought must be instantly repelled. …

By faith and prayer all may meet the requirements of the gospel. No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must be first gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. … The Lord … knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart, and He will help in every time of temptation (5T 177).

Temptations will pour in upon us; for by them we are to be tried during our probation upon earth. This is the proving of God, a revelation of our own hearts. There is no sin in having temptations; but sin comes in when temptation is yielded to (4T 358).

Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed. He is turned away from the course of virtue and real good by following his own inclinations. … It is Satan’s act to tempt you, but your own act to yield. It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress (4T 623).

Satan ... cannot force men to do evil. He tempts them to it, and makes sin look enticing and pleasant; but he has to leave it to their own wills whether they will do it or not. … Man is a free moral agent to accept or refuse (2T 294).

Pure religion has to do with the will. … The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the deciding power, which works in the children of men unto obedience to God, or unto disobedience (5T 513).

Unless Christ should consent to temptation, He could not be overcome. … The tempter can never compel us to do evil. He cannot control minds unless they are yielded to his control. The will must consent, faith must let go its hold upon Christ, before Satan can exercise his power upon us. But every sinful desire we cherish affords him a foothold (DA 125).

Although the “orthodox” Catholic and Protestant view is that sin is inherited genetically, Ellen White never uses the term “original sin” in a theological sense. Here is the only place where Ellen White uses the phrase “the original sin” (note that she uses it in a strictly historical, not theological sense, and note also how she emphasizes the manner of the transmission of sin throughout human history):

Through the medium of influence, taking advantage of the action of mind on mind, he [Satan] prevailed on Adam to sin. Thus at its very source human nature was corrupted. And ever since then sin has continued its hateful work, reaching from mind to mind. Every sin committed awakens the echoes of the original sin.

Mutual dependence is a wonderful thing. Reciprocal influence should be carefully studied. We should find out without doubt on what side we are exerting our influence. When placed on the side of right, influence is a power for God; when placed on the side of evil, it is a power for Satan. One human being under Satan’s control becomes a means of temptation to another human being. Thus evil grows into immense proportions (RH April 16, 1901).

Not one word in the article supports the idea of a genetic transmission of sin through biological reproduction. Yet while talking about “the original sin” this would have been Ellen White’s golden opportunity to support the “orthodox” Catholic and Protestant view.

Note her emphasis: the transmission of sin in succeeding generations from Adam is specifically “through the medium of influence, … reaching from mind to mind.” She urges in this connection the “careful study” of “reciprocal influence.” Through this means evil “grows into immense proportions,” that is, “iniquity abounds.” (Let us not forget that “influence” begins to play its part from the moment of conception; science abundantly confirms this.)

Paul comes his closest to “original sin” in the following:

Wherefore, 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. … Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:12, 18, 19).

So, Paul is as cautious as Ellen White! With her “lesser light” illuminating our darkened vision of “the greater light,” Paul’s passage appears in perfect harmony with the Review and Herald statement above. He is about to articulate “original sin” in verse 12 but he catches himself and says “death came by sin, and death passed upon all men.” “I was just about to say,” in effect, “that the phenomenon of death passing on all men requires a genetic transmission of sin and guilt through the genes and chromosomes—well, the truth is, all sinned!”[1] He may have come within a hair’s breadth of articulating the doctrine of original sin, but he doesn’t. The proponents of “original sin” mistakenly ask for the baptism of infants to wipe away its stain, but they fail to see how Paul says that whatever such stain is transmitted from Adam to the human race is canceled by Christ for the human race:

Therefore as by the offense of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One [Christ] the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (Rom. 5:18, 19, KJV). So also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (NIV).

Sin is transmitted through “mutual dependence,” “the action of mind on mind ... reaching from mind to mind” so that “every sin committed awakens the echoes of the original sin.” “Reciprocal influence should be carefully studied. … Thus evil grows into immense proportions” (idem).[2]

Summary:There is no “exemption” for Christ as the holy embryo of an infant. From the time He “began life,”He is free to “accept the results of the working of the great law of heredity,” “yet without sin.” He will not “participate” in our sin unless He is in anomia against God, whereas Paul in Romans 5:12 includes all of us in anomia. When he says “all sinned” he clearly means all “participated.” For Christ to “take” or “assume” our full genetic heredity does not make Him “altogether human, such an one as ourselves” “which cannot be,” for we have sinned, and He “did no sin.” We are only human; He is divine-human. “The perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ” is consistent with His acceptance of our full genetic heredity.

But how can Christ be perfectly sinless while He inherits our sinful nature through Mary?

1. E.H. (Jack) Sequeira understands eph ho differently, as meaning “in that” or “in whom all sinned” (citing the aorist tense). The literal rendering of the Emphatic Diaglot agrees: “As through one man sin entered into the world (in whom all sinned), and through sin, death; so also, death passed upon all men.” But in so translating the verse, it has to transpose the eph ho clause to another place, whereas in the original Greek it comes at the end of the verse. It is true that we are all incorporate “in Adam,” so that when he fell, we fell, as the aorist tense of the verb indicates. But it is also true that we have all repeated his fall. While the verb for “death passed on all men” (dielthen) is also aorist, as is the “all sinned” in Romans 3:23, the next verb of Romans 3:23 is in the present tense, “all do come short.” Therefore it seems evident that Paul recognizes both our corporate involvement in Adam’s sin as the human race, and our continuing volitional involvement in sin as individuals. In becoming man, Christ “took” upon Himself that full corporate identity “yet without sin,” that is, without participating volitionally in our sin. [Return to Text]
2. Pelagianism teaches that each baby is born into the world sinless and neutral, but becomes a sinner when he/she recognizes (as does the Bible) that we are born sinners and “go astray as soon as [we] be born.” (Ps. 58:3).” This is because we are conceived and born separated from God, devoid of agape, and thus are automatically selfish. And selfishness is sin. [Return to Text]