Part 2 of 6

God's Way: A New Heart And A New Spirit.

God outlined His way of redemption in Ezekiel 36:25-27; "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you (inside first), and a new spirit (inside first) will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh (inside first). And I will put my spirit within you (inside first), and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them (outside afterwards)". God's way is consistent with what Jesus taught us in Matthew 23:26. Notice, as outlined in these scriptures, we are given a new and pure heart, a new spirit, and God's own Holy Spirit, all at the same time. We are cleansed inwardly and given a new heart with its new desires. As a result of this spiritual heart transplant, God places within us a pure heart that He can write His laws upon (Heb 8:10). We have a personal understanding of God commandments, we have the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit giving us power to resist doing evil, and therefore we can fully obey God’s commandments. God does not write His laws on sinful or carnal hearts. He didn't do this in the Old Testament time-period and He doesn't do this in the New Testament time-period either. This is why He gives us a new and pure heart. Some would have us to believe that God takes one sinful heart out when He initially saves us and puts another sinful right heart back in. But, my friend, God has something far better than that! He doesn't just overhaul our sinful heart, He gives us a brand new one.

The Apostle John recorded in Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection (or he that is passed from death unto life, i.e. from being spiritually dead in sins and trespasses to being spiritually alive in Christ, due to having a born-again experience): on such the second death (or physical death) hath no power. Why are we blessed? Because our new heart is pure. Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Because of this pure heart, someday we shall see God face to face, with nothing in our lives that will cause an eternal separation from God. Why are we holy? Because we are sanctified and cleansed from all sin by the blood of Jesus Christ during that first resurrection, or at the time of our conversion (being raised from spiritual death unto spiritual life). Every genuine conversion is from sin unto holiness, as certainly as from Satan unto God.

As already shown, the new heart that God gives us is a pure heart, but we are to keep this new heart clean because it will motivate our actions. Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. We keep our heart clean by living a consistent holy life, that is to say a live free from all sin. Our heart is the seed of our affections. When we are saved, according to the scriptures, God also places His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, within us. We will study more about this later on in this booklet. This experience of being born of the Spirit and becoming a new creation with new desires, along with knowing the laws of God, causes us to walk in God's statutes and keep His judgments. This allows us to keep both the outside and the inside clean and free from all sin.

In a 1902 book entitled "Sanctification", written by church of God pioneer J. W. Byers, he states on page 92 that a justified person will request prayer for the need of "perfect love" and will confess to "having been overcome by sin, and having made some crooked paths". He notes that such persons are "honest, willing children of God" and in fact these failures "teach them the need of the second grace". This type of statement is all too common among the advocates of this teaching. I had a very dear two cleansing brother tell me that in his "justified" state he "just didn't have the victory" like he should have had in his life. I asked this brother to explain to me what he meant by that particular statement. After a short discussion, he further explained that he had been doing something that he knew God forbid him to do during his "justified" state. He said that he did not get the power to truly do God's divine will until after he was "entirely sanctified". I explained to him, very nicely but very definitely, that we cannot be justified before God while still living in open rebellion to His Word. Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. I told him that the experience that he called a second cleansing was most likely when he got genuinely converted, because we can't be saved from sin while still committing sin. If so, what would we be saved from? As has already been stated, being "saved" is not just a mere label, it's a living experience and a present everyday reality. Additionally, God doesn't justify us in sin, He sent His Son to save us and deliver us from all sin. In this case, this brother was basing his beliefs not only on what he had been taught, but on his supposed personal experience. This is an extremely dangerous practice and can lead to a great deception. We need to look no farther than the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements to see what can happen if we base our beliefs on experiences, and not on a solid Biblical foundation. I believe that we should experience what we believe, and that our beliefs should be nothing more or nothing less than what the Word of God teaches. God would not have us up and down, in and out, saved one week and backsliden the next, while all the time still professing salvation. If we will dig deep and hit the rock, get genuinely born-again and receive the gift of God (Eph 2:8), God will give us an experience that will keep us from sin and will last a lifetime. Then, and only then, are we truly justified before God.

As previously noted, this brother's statement and personal experience is all too common among those that teach a two-step plan of redemption. However, with all due respect, I have often asked myself: Where were all of these sinning and defeated justified saints before their supposed sanctifying experience? After receiving “sanctification”, I've heard testimony after testimony among those who teach two cleansings of how sadly defeated they were before they experienced the second work. I've heard them profess how that they didn't have the power to live free from sin until the "second blessing". I've heard them explain how that the devil kept them continually defeated until the Spirit empowered them. I've heard them confess, both in writing and in personal testimony, that they had harbored ill will, bad attitudes and malice in their hearts until the Holy Ghost "purged it all out". Again, where were these dear people before being entirely sanctified? I must respectfully say that these fruit are not the fruit of the Spirit of God. I believe that such testimonies, be it in form of an outward expression or in song, may border being a mockery to God's perfect plan of salvation. Rarely have I ever heard of such a confession coming from a person in a justified state, prior to the second work, and certainly where such confessions are made, they are not in a boastful or proud way. In such cases where confessions are made, the testifier surely is not considered to have been in right spiritual standing before God. Could it possibly be that some may have played the role of a hypocrite? Could it be that some were claiming one thing publicly but living something else privately? I certainly hope not. My friend, such inward or outward carnal manifestations are not to be found among truly saved children of God. A holy life is one that is free from all sin. Also, tearing down and belittling a born-again experience to uphold a subsequent spiritual experience is not of God and certainly is not supported by the scriptures! God surely would not have us build up a second spiritual experience on such a spiritually weak or deceptive anti-holiness foundation. I don't believe that God takes this lightly and I don't believe that we should either. Let us be careful not to lower the Bible standard of salvation to accommodate failures and shortcomings, and certainly not sin.

Original Sin.

The next subject that we want to study is that of original sin. It is interesting to note right at the front of this portion of our study that the expressions: original sin, Adamic sin, inherited sin, inbred sin, dormant sin, native depravity, or depraved nature cannot be found in the Bible. This is not to say that they should immediately be discarded as false doctrine, but we should at least be aware of their consistent absence. The way that many "religious leaders" commonly use these expressions, we would be led to believe that they are frequently found throughout the entire Bible, as this is a very prominent teaching in "Christiandom". However, such expressions or such teaching is not found in the Bible at all. We honestly feel that if all parties were to limit themselves to just expressions found in the Holy Scriptures, most of the present controversy would be eliminated. As Bro. D. O. Teasley expressed in his song, it would be good if we were all to go “Back to the Blessed Old Bible”. One brother told me once that he would have a very difficult time preaching on sanctification without the use of these expressions, as they were common expressions among those with whom he fellowships. I asked him what that said for the soundness of his message.

Is "original inherited sin" taught in the Bible? First of all, we must answer the fundamental question: What is sin? The definition of sin can be easily summed up by the following three statements:

1. Sin is a willful transgression (or rebellion) against God and His law (1 John 3:4).

2. Sin is promoting lawlessness (2 Tim 2:19).

3. Sin is knowing to do good, but not doing it (James 4:17).

By this scriptural definition, sin can be divided into at least two categories: omission and commission. Sin is characterized by willingly committing an act or omitting an act. Two key elements of every sin are our knowledge and our will. One must know what is required and willfully disobey (or rebel against) that requirement to sin against God. Paul said in Romans 7:7 ...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. For instance, I must know that it is wrong for me to steal before I am responsible to God for the sin of stealing. As a child, I am not held accountable to God for "stealing" a cookie from the cookie jar until I know that I am sinning against God's commandment of not stealing. Mother may hold me responsible, and she should. That's why it's the parents responsibility to train up children in the way they should go. We must know what is required of God and willfully disobey to commit sin.

Now we must ask: Is a newborn child a sinner? Let us answer this question with the litmus test of Truth. First of all, does a newborn child know what God requires of him? No. Does he know and willfully disobey (or rebel against) the law of God?. Obviously, No. Then the Bible teaches that he or she is not a sinner, plain and simple. John 15:22 If I (Jesus) had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. Romans 4:15 ... for where no law is, there is no transgression. With this understanding, it can plainly be seen that sin is not something that is inherited, but must involve both knowledge and will. When Adam and Eve committed that first sin, they knew what God required of them, they willfully chose to disobey, and they paid the price (they were cut off from God). Their sin is not passed on to us genetically. The Bible says: "And be it indeed that I have erred, mine error remaineth with myself" Job 19:4 .

A careful examination of Old Testament scriptures reveals the following: Ezekiel 18:19-20 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son...

This scripture clearly teaches that children do not bear the sin of their parents, i.e., a son does not bear the iniquity or the sin of his father. Every individual is responsible for his own sin and will pay the penalty for it. Adam's sin was Adam's problem. You and I are not accountable to God for Adam's original sin. (In all actuality, it was Eve [Gen 3:6] that committed the first original sin.) We don't bear his iniquity. We did not genetically inherit his sin nor is it inbred into our hearts. Until Jesus comes and personally speaks to us, we have no sin.

The New Testament reveals the following: Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil. Romans 5:13 ...sin is not imputed when there is no law. Here, we learn that the Bible again teaches that unborn children are not sinners. They are not born saints, but neither are they born sinners. The charge that children are born evil sinners is foreign to the Word of God. Additionally, according to Rom 5:13, they are not accountable for Adam's sin because sin is not imputed (charged, accountable) when there is no moral law that has been personally and willfully broken. The doctrine of Original Sin leaves the impression that sinners are to be pitied rather than punished, simply because they were “born wrong” and couldn’t help but to choose to live a life of sin.

In the religious world it is taught that Adamic sin is not something that is forgiven, but is something that must be cleansed out. Where does this teaching come from? Certainly not the Word of God. Nowhere in the scriptures does the Bible teach that God will cleanse us from any type of sin that we don't confess or ask forgiveness for. On the contrary, the Bible clearly proclaims that "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" 1 John 1:9. If we are to be cleansed from sin, in any form, we must confess it, or in other words, we must take responsibility or personal ownership for it, and seek God's forgiveness for it. If these key actions don't take place, one does not receive a cleansing from sin.

We have shown by the Word of God that sin is not inherited. Since there is no such sin as Adamic sin or original inherited sin, an additional cleansing or work of grace is not required to remove it. As was stated, the Bible says: 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. There is not a single verse in the Bible that charges one with inbred sin and therefore, not a single verse in the Bible that addresses how to get rid of it. The Bible is consistent.

Well, if it is this simple, one might ask why there is so much confusion in the religious world about this teaching? This is a very good question. Certainly, God is not the author of such confusion. In response to this question, we will spend the next few pages looking at the other side of this teaching and studying the scriptures that are sometimes used to support the inherited sin teaching.

Was Seth Born A Sinner?

Some of those who teach that sin is inherited have erroneously concluded that Adam passed sin onto Seth, his third son. They say that this was the beginning, and is typical, of “native depravity”. The single scripture used to support this teaching is Genesis 5:3. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. According to the teaching, man's moral nature was corrupted after the fall and that corrupted nature or Adamic original sin was genetically passed on to Seth. It attempts to redefine sin as a substance rather then a choice. They say that Seth's moral status at birth, or even conception, was patterned after Adam's corrupt sinful status after the fall, rather than in God's image. The problem with this theory is that it simply is not sound because it does not line up with the Bible. For instance, Gen. 9:6 refutes this hypothesis because it is much later chronologically, yet it is clearly stated that even at this time “in the image of God made he man”. New Testament scriptures also confirm the reality that man is created in the very image of God. Both 1 Cor 11:7 and James 3:9 state that man is “the image and glory of God” and that he was “made after the similitude (image) of God”.

We have already noted that the Bible explicitly states that "the son shall not bare the iniquity of the father" (Ezek 18:20). This scripture includes Adam and his son Seth. Also, the Bible says that Abel, the second of Adam's sons, was righteous in God's eyes (Heb 11:4, Matt 23:35). If Adam's sin was inherited or passed down from father to son, why wasn't Abel born corrupted? The Bible says that it was appointed by God that Seth replace Abel. The name "Seth" means "compensation". God compensated Adam for the loss of his righteous son Abel. In fact, it was through Seth's lineage that man once again began to “call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen 4:26). It was also through Seth’s lineage that we read about faithful Enoch who the Bible says “had this testimony, that he pleased God”, insomuch that he never even saw physical death but was translated directly into the presence of the Lord. (Heb 11:5). Most importantly it was through Seth’s lineage that Jesus came, and all agree that Jesus certainly didn't genetically inherit Adam's sin nor was he born after the image of fallen Adam. In all, this teaching attempts to make God responsible for compensating righteous with unrighteousness.

We should also note here that the same logic and reasoning that concludes that mankind inherits sin (because of the comparison to Seth's image) must equivocally conclude that mankind inherits righteousness (because of the comparison to Abel's image). This reasoning would make our moral and spiritual condition at the time of our birth or conception directly dependent upon our father's spiritual condition at the time when we were born or conceived. Surely, the Bible does not support such a teaching. Since both conclusions cannot be true, we must therefore conclude that the entire logic leading to such conclusions is faulty.

The simple Truth of this scripture is that Seth resembled Adam and had some of the same physical characteristics of Adam. Notice, this likeness to Adam was not said to apply to all of Adam's children, only to Seth. It does not apply to his daughters, for instance. The Bible does not say that Adam begat children in his image, only a son, and particular son at that. It should come as no surprise to us that one of Adam's sons looked a lot like him. Many sons resemble their fathers. There is nothing mysterious about this scripture. I repeat, there is not even so much as a hint of where the likeness of Seth to Adam found in this scripture applies to all of mankind. A quick look in a good concordance or Bible dictionary on the words "image" and "likeness" clears up any confusion relating to this passage.

Why did God want us to know that Seth looked like Adam? Certainly, God had His reasons. You see, God is interested in the details. Here, the only place in the Bible that I am aware of that deals with the physical similarities between a father and son, He was using the physical resemblance of Seth to Adam to illustrate that as a physical likeness is passed on from a father to his son, we, as children of God, through Christ, the second Adam, spiritually resemble our Father. The Bible says that when we, as sons of God, see our Father, we will resemble Him. 1 John 3:1-2 "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is". As Seth looked like his natural father, so shall we look like our spiritual Father. "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" 1 Corinthians 15:49. Just as when Adam's seed was implanted and produced offspring that resembled him, when our heavenly Father implants His seed, or His Word (Jesus; Luke 8:11, John 1:1,14), it produces children that resemble Himself. We are the sons of God. As the song says, “I am a child of God”. 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. This is the simple Truth that this scripture was intended to reveal.

To teach that Seth, and mankind in general, inherited depraved sinful natures because we were created in fallen Adam's sinful likeness, we must also conclude that Jesus inherited sin or possessed a depraved sinful nature because the scriptures reveal that He too was made in the likeness or image of man. Philippians 2:5-7 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: If for generation after generation, mankind has taken on the moral likeness of our fathers, clear back to Adam and Seth, then we must also conclude that Jesus was born with a corrupt moral nature as He "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men". Surely, to conclude such is to error in doctrine as the scriptures clearly teach that "ye know that he (Jesus) was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin" 1 John 3:5. Furthermore, and even worse yet, we would have to additionally conclude that God Himself is sinful in nature because the Bible teaches that Jesus is the express (exact) image of God the Father (Heb 1:3, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15). Such a conclusion is forced upon us if we are to believe the inherited sin teaching.

Children Sinners?

Matthew 18:3 ... Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In this scripture, Jesus was telling his very own disciples, those who had their names written in heaven (Luke 10:20), those who had authority over the devil (Luke 10:19), those who were not of the world (John 15:19), those who kept the Word of God (John 17:6,8), and those who belonged to God (John 17:9,10), that after their full conversion (Luke 22:32, Acts 15:3 & 9), it would be necessary for them to become like little children, or they would never enter into the kingdom of heaven. Would he have said this to His own disciples if He knew that little children were rebellious little sinners with sinful, evil, and depraved hearts? Not hardly! Telling people of such character to become like sinners, with sinful hearts and natures, is totally contrary to the Word of God and the entire plan of salvation! Furthermore, Jesus said in Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them (His disciples) unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. In this scripture, Jesus Himself said that the Kingdom of God is made up of people that are as pure and innocent as little children. Was He teaching here that the Kingdom of God, the Church of God, is made up of sinners and people who have sinful evil hearts and sinful natures? Again, I think not. The problem with carnality was not with the little children, it was with the disputing disciples. I wonder if there is not a lesson for us here?

While we have known some "spiteful" children, after meeting their parents it was understandable why they behaved in such manner. I have also seen children come from the same home with the same upbringing, yet with have with vastly different temperaments. In such cases, we have not at all concluded that they are born with a inherited sin nature, but rather, in an attempt to please their parents and other adults, and/or gain the attention of those same adults, they tend to imitate what they view as acceptable, in other words, how they see their parents behave. Being a Christian parent, it has been my experience that our children have tender hearts and, to a greater or lesser degree, have always been moved by the appeal "what would Jesus have them do". When I read writings of some who have are quick to point out spiteful, sinful behavior in their children and those of others around them, I am often lead to wonder exactly what kind of example they have set before them!

What About Children Who Die Before The Age Of Accountability?

Those who teach inherited sin have a difficult time scripturally explaining how children who die in infancy enter into heaven. The Bible says: John 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come; Matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. There is no sin (nor impure hearts) in heaven. There never was, and there never will be (Matt 6:10). If the theory of inherited sin were true, children would go to hell if they die before the age of accountability, according to the scripture. Can this be true? I find it interesting that the same Church of God people that teach the inherited sin doctrine also teach that there will be no sin in heaven. In fact, a popular invitational song written by Bro. C. W. Naylor, a prominent Evening Light Church of God reformer, is titled "Sin Can Never Enter There". Part of the second verse says: "You must here be cleansed from sin, have the life of Christ within, sin can never enter there". However, when it comes to inherited sin, many people seemingly discard the doctrine, the songs, the sin-free requirement, the pure heart requirement, the scriptures, and even the need for a sin cleansing, and insist on the right to enter heaven with sin in the heart, be it an innocent child or a "justified" believer yet in need of a second cleansing. I believe there needs to be a little more consistency somewhere along the line. On the one hand, many are quick and to point out that the devil was never in heaven, for “heaven is a holy place filled with glory and with grace”, but on the other hand they teach that heaven is the home of those with uncleansed inherited sin in the heart.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that infant baptism washes away original inherited sin thereby allowing the child access to heaven (baptismal regeneration). Can this Roman Catholicism solution be found in the scriptures? No. Likewise, two cleansing teachers often just unscripturally explain it away. Many times the claim is usually something like "Inherited sin is covered by the blood" or "God is a just God and I just know He wouldn't send a child to hell". We must respectfully ask; Where are the scriptures that support these conclusions? There are none. Why not? The Truth is, children are not born sinners and if they should die before they reach the age of reason and accountability, and before they willfully disobey a known commandment of the Lord, they will enjoy an eternal life in heaven. Children have no sin to be "saved" or cleansed from. Neither does a truly born-again and justified Christian.

Please pay close attention to this next statement. We are not physically born spiritually dead. We are born spiritually innocent and alive. Here's the scripture that supports that conclusion, as already noted. Paul said in Romans 7:9 For I was alive (spiritually alive and innocent before God in his infancy and childhood years) without the law once (before he came to the age of reason and accountability): but when the commandment came (when God sent his Word and understanding to Paul), sin revived (Paul willfully disobeyed a known commandment and sin instantly came alive in Paul's life, just as it did in the lives of others), and I died (Paul spiritually died). Only after Paul disobeyed the known commandment of God was Paul spiritually dead in sins and trespasses and in need of a Savior. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), not the result of physical birth. I'm afraid some would have us spiritually dead before we are even physically born. This wasn't Paul's experience. See how clear the Bible is? We need not be in confusion on this subject.

Shapen In Iniquity, Conceived In Sin.

Often those who teach the inherited sin doctrine refer to Psalm 51:5 as "positive evidence" supporting their belief that sin is indeed inherited. I have found that this is the single most quoted scripture used by religious leaders, Catholic and Protestants alike, to teach the inherited sin doctrine. It says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

First of all, pulling a single scripture out of it's context and baselining a doctrine on it is a very dangerous practice, especially if one attempts to apply it universally to the moral state of all of mankind. The Bible says "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Sound doctrine must be established by precept upon precept; line upon line. A good example of the practice of misapplying scripture universally is with the scripture that says "There is none righteous, no not one" (Rom 3:10). If we were to isolate this scripture and remove it from its context, does this mean that there is not, was not, and never will be a single person that is righteous on the face of the earth? Absolutely not! What about Jesus? Jesus was righteous and God's call is for all of His people to be righteous likewise. Titus 2:11-12 "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world". As we can clearly see, taking Rom 3:10 out of it's original context and applying it to all mankind would lead to a significant erroneous conclusion. The same is true in applying David's condition in Psalm 51:5 to all of mankind.

Reading the first four verses of Psalm 51 reveals the context surrounding this scripture was well as David's frame of mind at the time that he wrote this passage. Remember that he had just committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed. In this entire Psalm, he was calling on God to have mercy on him. Psalm 51:1-4 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. At no time was David trying to blame his mother for his sinful condition. At no time do we read of David even attempting to blame Bathsheba for his sin of adultery, although she was directly involved in it. Certainly, we see no evidence of David putting the blame for his sinful condition on Adam or Eve. He didn't even mention them. He was accepting the total responsibility for his actions and was trying to seek forgiveness for his own sin. In these four scriptures alone, David claims ownership of his sinful condition no less than ten times. He was humbly calling upon God and he clearly was putting the blame for his sinful condition right where it belonged, on himself. In humbling himself, he mentions the fact, in so many words, that he was a sinner through and through and that there was absolutely no excuse for what he had done. He was describing his lowly sinful position before an Almighty Holy God. As did the Prophet Isaiah when he came into the presence of the Lord and His great Holiness (Isaiah 6:1-5), David, after committing such horrible sinful acts, saw himself and acknowledged the lowly sinful condition he was in.

As sincere Bible students and seekers of Truth, we should keep in mind that Psalm 51:5 is in the Old Testament. The people of God did not have the power to live free from sin back then. David, his mother, his father, his grandmother, his grandfather, and everyone for that manner, were all sinners. They did not have the power to live holy lives back then. Indeed, David was shaped in iniquity and he was conceived in sin. At the time when this scripture was written, David was in pitiful shape. In fact, mankind as a whole was in pitiful shape until Jesus came and offered a way out. This scripture, when kept in it's proper context, does not teach that sin is inherited at all. It could not and remain consistent with the rest of the Bible.

If everyone who is born of a woman inherits sin as some teach, then again we must ask ourselves; What about Jesus? He too was born of a women. Did he inherit Adam's Sin? If not, why not? Why did He not inherit Adam's sin since everyone else supposedly does? According to James 3:9, Jesus was “made after the similitude (image) of God”. Where are the scriptures that answers these questions? These are additional difficult questions for those who teach inherited sin, and usually are just explained away. The Truth is that Jesus did not inherit sin from Adam or anyone else. The Bible says: 1 John 3:5 And ye know that he (Jesus) was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Jesus didn't inherit Adam's sin and neither do we.