Is Character Inherited?

It has been suggested that we inherit the sinful character our parents and ancestors developed dating back to Adam and Eve, and that we are condemned to hell based on their sins. Is it true?

The following passages indicate that character is not inherited, that we are not condemned to hell based on the sins of our parents or ancestors.


Nevertheless, there are other passages which clearly teach we do indeed inherit the traits of character our parents cultivated. We inherit their traits, not their character. We inherit the inclinations, tendencies, propensities associated with the traits of character our parents cultivated.

As a result of our parents' influence on us, both by inheritance and by example, the likelihood we will develop similar traits of character is high. And it is the character we ourselves cultivate, not the traits or tendencies we inherit, that determines our eternal destiny in judgment.

Why do you use just some passages and omit others? The passages you quoted make clear that a right character, a noble character is not inherited. But of course a sinful, defective character is inherited; defects of character are inherited. Please study the following quotes:

“They [many of the children who attend our schools] have inherited the defective characters of their parents, and the discipline of the home has been no help in the formation of right character.” {2MCP 550.1}

“But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model. There are many who have some defect of character received as a birthright, which they have not overcome, but have cherished as though it were fine gold, and brought with them into their religious experience. In many cases these traits are retained through the entire life. For a time no particular harm may be seen to result from them; but the leaven is at work, and when a favorable opportunity arrives, the evil manifests itself.” {5T 418.1}

The character is the sum total of your traits of character. This is obvious. You are born with a character which can be modified at any moment.

“God expects every one who claims to be his child to reveal to the world not their natural, hereditary, sinful character, but a representation of the character of Christ.” {HM, December 1, 1894 par. 4}

If character cannot be inherited, why does she say that many children have inherited the defective character of their parents? Why does she say that we can receive defects of character as a birthright? Why does she say that we shouldn’t reveal to the world our hereditary, sinful character?

Please study the following quote:

“God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity. But they listened to Satan's specious temptations, and transgressed this holy law, and the result was death. And the sons and daughters of Adam, instead of coming into the world, as God first made man, righteous and heirs of eternal life, have been the victims of sin and death and woe. This is the result of the transgression of God's law in Eden.” {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

How could God have given our first parents a pure and upright character if we are not born with a character? How could this character have been bequeathed to Adam’s posterity? Please notice that, if Adam had not sinned, his sons and daughters would have come into the world righteous, that is, would have been born righteous. Does “righteous” describe a person’s character or not? Are we born righteous? Was Christ born righteous?


Why then do babies need a Savior?

If we combine all the quotes posted so far on this thread I believe it is clear we inherit the traits our parents cultivated - not their character.


We begin developing certain inherited, bequeathed traits of character right away. We are always reacting and responding to our fallen propensities, always cultivating specific traits of character. Had our First Parents not sinned we would have inherited sinless propensities, sinless appetites and passions, and cultivating sinless traits of character would come naturally.


Because "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". It only takes one sin to need a Saviour. Adam and Eve demonstrated that in the Garden of Eden. Like Eve, babies do not realize they are sinning, however, even sins of ignorance require a Saviour.

"And the sons and daughters of Adam, instead of coming into the world, as God first made man, righteous and heirs of eternal life, have been the victims of sin and death and woe.” {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

Mike,

If Adam had not sinned, his sons and daughter would have come to the world righteous, that is, they would have been born righteous and heirs of eternal life.
Does “righteous” describe a person’s character or not? Are we born righteous? Was Christ born righteous?


We are born with a character made up of good and bad traits inherited from both our parents. The development of this character will last our whole lives.

The word "righteous" refers to many things. When referring to sinful flesh nature, the word "righteous" doesn't apply. When referring to inherited traits of character, it doesn't apply, either.

No one is naturally born with a righteous character. Otherwise, theoretically a person could go through life without ever sinning, making God a liar. In the case of Adam's kids, if he hadn't sinned, they would have been born with a righteous flesh nature and would have developed righteous character.

Jesus was born "that holy thing". He was born with a sinful flesh nature just like the rest of us. He also had to develop a sinless character just like born again believers. He was not born with a character already developed or even partially developed. He began developing character from the moment He was incarnated. As a man, He is still developing it, and will continue to do so throughout eternity.

What does the following mean to you?

I have quoted several passages, and others could be quoted which say that Adam possessed a righteous character when he was created, like the following one:

"The human race do not stand in the righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation." {ST, June 11, 1894 par. 11}

Besides, Ellen White makes abundantly clear that parents give the stamp of character to their children:

"Their children often receive the stamp of character before their birth; for the appetites of the parents are often intensified in the children. Thus unborn generations are afflicted by the use of tobacco and liquor. Intellectual decay is entailed upon them, and their moral perception is blunted." {ST, February 3, 1890 par. 8}

[Note: "stamp of character" is not just something with which you are born, as many quotes make clear, among them the following one:

"All who enter the missionary field will have hardships and trials to endure; they will find hard work, and plenty of it; but those of the right stamp of character will persevere under difficulties, discouragements, and privations, holding firmly to the arm of the Lord." {PH078 33.1}]


So Jesus wasn't born righteous.


What you've just said makes no sense. He was born "that holy thing". What distinguished Him from us?


This does not make sense either. Adam had a righteous character when he sinned.
I didn't understand what you said. What exactly would make God a liar?


It means Jesus was born with a body like ours, not with a sinful character like ours.

Rosangela, if, as you say, we have a character even before we are born, does that mean we are condemned to death even before we are born? If so, based on what? According to the SOP, it is character that determines our eternal destiny in judgment. Are we lost in judgment based on the characters our parents developed?

Not only was Adam created with a righteous character, he was also created fully grown, capable of intelligent speech, and many other things that do not apply to us when we are born. In addition to everything else, Adam's flesh was in harmony with God's will, that is, his appetites and passions were pure and holy, the thoughts and feelings they generated and communicated to his sinless mind were righteous. Which is not how we come into the world, nor is it how Jesus came into the world.

If we are born with a righteous character like Adam had when he was created, then, theoretically, we could live our lives without ever committing a sin. However, God said "all have sinned" and if we could live our lives without sinning then it would make a God a liar. I am not implying this is what you are saying.

The point is, we do not inherit character, instead, we inherit traits and tendencies that cause us to develop character. And, we naturally nurture and cultivate sinful character, which is why God can truthfully say, "All have sinned" and why Sister White repeatedly wrote - "character is not transferable".


I realize you believe these insight only apply to righteous character, that the righteous character of someone else does not count toward our salvation. However, there is no evidence that the sinful characters our parents developed is any different, that is, nothing suggests that we are lost because of the characters our parents formed.

Regarding Jesus and the "great law of heredity" it stands to reason that if we inherit our parents' sinful characters then so did Jesus. That is, He inherited Mary's sinful character as a minimum. But, I'm sure no one believes such a thing, therefore, how can you say we have a sinful character even before we are born? The reason I ask is because the SOP says Jesus inherited everything we inherit at birth.

Mike,

"Human nature is depraved, and is justly condemned by a holy God." {RH, September 17, 1895 par. 7}

"The nature of man is in opposition to the divine will, depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God expressed in his law." {ST, June 9, 1890 par. 12}

In these quotes, what is "nature"?

Ellen White still says the following:

"You have transmitted to your children a miserable legacy, a depraved nature rendered still more depraved by your gross habits of eating and drinking." {2T 61.2}

We have a depraved nature and transmit to our children a depraved nature. It's said that this nature is "in opposition to the divine will" and, therefore, "is justly condemned by a holy God". Of course God must condemn that which is not in harmony with His will. And this is true of the nature with which we are born.

"The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked." {TDG 34.3}

Wouldn't God condemn a nature (character) opposed to virtue? How could God approve of it?


Well, Jesus never sinned. Did this make God a liar?


Not so. First, nobody knows how character traits are transmitted. Even if they are indeed transmitted through the DNA, as Tom affirms, Mary's cell had a single set of 23 chromosomes. For every trait (physical or otherwise) information from both sets of 23 chromosomes is necessary. Therefore, God had to supply the lacking information, and what God supplied must necessarily be good. How this affected Christ's heredity nobody knows.

Of course God condemns fallen flesh nature. But He doesn't condemn us. He especially condemns its unholy clamorings. But He doesn't condemn us based on its unholy clamorings.

"The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." {AH 127.2}


Are nature and character synonymous? We inherit fallen flesh nature, whereas we cultivate character. Character is not part of nature. It is separate and distinct.

"Mental ability and genius are not character, for these are often possessed by those who have the very opposite of a good character. Reputation is not character. True character is a quality of the soul, revealing itself in the conduct." {ML 267.4}


The passage "all have sinned" does not apply to Jesus. The point is, we do not inherit character, instead, we inherit traits and tendencies that cause us to develop character. And, we naturally nurture and cultivate sinful character, which is why God can truthfully say, "All have sinned" and why Sister White repeatedly wrote - "character is not transferable".


Sister White is clear. Jesus' human nature was "perfectly identical with our own nature". The only difference is - He didn't sin. Like a born again believer partaking of the divine nature, Jesus did not indulge the unholy appetites and passions that tempted Him from within to sin. Like a believer, He held them in subjection to a sanctified will and mind.

"Like every child of Adam [Jesus] accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." (7A 452)

"His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own." (3SM 129)

"He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin." (16MR 181)

If this were true, He could condemn our sins without condemning us.


Of course they are (naturally I am referring to moral nature, as distinct from physical nature). The fact that our nature is depraved just means our character is depraved.

“The human character is depraved, deformed by sin, and terribly unlike that of the first man as he came from the hands of the Creator.” {RH, November 24, 1885 par. 9}


Nobody transfers his character to others, but transmits traits of his character to his children. The sum total of these traits is the character of the child. Adam had a character – and a righteous character - when he came from the hands of the Creator, although he hadn’t yet cultivated it. What you are saying is contradictory – a baby does not have a character when he is born, but sins even before he is born. If he sins, he is already cultivating his sinful tendencies and, therefore, developing his character.


No. He was born without the taint of sin. What does this mean?

“He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family.” - Letter 97, 1898, p. 5.

They're not our sins, right? We do not inherit the character our parents cultivated. So, they are their sins, not ours. The traits and tendencies we inherit do not constitute character.


I disagree. The physical, mental, and moral nature we inherit at birth is simply the tools or faculties we use to cultivate character. The characters we cultivate did not exist before we were born.

Born again believers possess fallen, sinful, corrupt, depraved natures nevertheless they are, while abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature, able to cultivate sinless, righteous characters. Thus, having a depraved nature does not necessarily mean they have depraved characters.


I agree with you that character is not transferable, that we only inherit traits and tendencies from our parents. We form character by repeatedly acting out the unholy thoughts and feelings that tempt us from within and without.


According to the SOP, character is the product of repetition, not the result of one or two deeds. It takes time to form character. It must become a habit first. An infant hasn't been alive long enough to develop a well defined character. Yes, some are born with strong predispositions, and certain character traits are sure to follow, however, they haven't technically developed character.

Here's how Sister White describes character development:


Nothing about the quotes posted above suggests we are born with a character. True, we are born with traits of character, but we are not born with a character.


Without the taint of sin, to me, means He did not sin in the womb or as an infant or at anytime during His life. He did, however, take our sinful, fallen human nature upon His pure, sinless divine nature. That is, He took upon Himself the "physical, mental, and moral degeneracy [that] prevailed throughout the human family" at the time of His incarnation.

He took our fallen nature, with our infirmities, our weaknesses, our sins, our temptations. Jesus became sin. The following insight describes the type of nature He took upon Himself. "His physical and moral dignity were in so great a degree destroyed that he bore but a faint resemblance in character and noble perfection of form to the dignified Adam in Eden."

The following quotes reiterate the fact Jesus took upon Himself our fallen form and nature:


In what way do you think Jesus' human nature was different than ours?

They are in us. How can God condemn something in a person without condemning the person?
So what you are affirming is that we are only condemned for our acts and not for the sinful tendencies of our character?


How many times is it necessary that an act be repeated before it becomes a habit? How do you know how many times a baby repeated an act in the womb?

“Bad habits are more easily formed than good ones” {2MCP 599.2}


Nothing in the following quotes suggests we are not born with a character:

“God expects every one who claims to be his child to reveal to the world not their natural, hereditary, sinful character, but a representation of the character of Christ.” {HM, December 1, 1894 par. 4}

“They [children who attend our schools] have inherited the defective characters of their parents, and the discipline of the home has been no help in the formation of right character.” {2MCP 550.1}

“Hereditary and cultivated deformity of human character, as also beauty of character, will have to be met” {FE 277.1}

“God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity.” {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

“Their parents were accountable in a great degree for the characters developed by their children, which are transmitted from generation to generation.” {2SM 424.1}

“Your entire life has been molded by the legacy of character transmitted to you at birth.” {RH, July 18, 1899 par. 2}

“From babyhood the character of the child is to be molded and fashioned in accordance with the divine plan.” {CG 193.2}


Jesus loved truth and virtue and was inclined to them, not disinclined to them.

“The duty of intelligent souls is to hold to the truth, to practice virtue. We are born with a disinclination to both. It is sad to find in one's own constitution an opposition to virtues that are commendable in the sight of God, as submission, charity, sweetness of spirit, and patience that will not be provoked.” {TDG 34.3}

“His [Christ’s] inclination to right was a constant gratification to his parents.” {YI, September 8, 1898 par. 7}

Okay. Where do we stand? "Nobody transfers his character to others, but transmits traits of his character to his children." We both agree we do not inherit the character our parents cultivated. We both agree we inherit their sinful traits and tendencies.

So, what is character? And, what are traits and tendencies? How do they differ?

"If the thoughts are wrong the feelings will be wrong, and the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character." {5T 310.1}

Anyone with thoughts and feelings has a character.

If an infant has thoughts and feelings, it has character. If not, then it does not.

Here's where I am most uncomfortable with the postlapsarian definition of sin. Consider the following:



Now, a series of "carefully crafted questions" (as my pastor refers to my style of investigation). They're all Yes/No, so it should be easy:

1. While filled with the Spirit, was it possible for John to keep from sinning?
2. If so, was it possible for John to remain filled with the Spirit every moment of his life?
3. If so, was it theoretically possible for John to go through life without sinning?
4. If so, would Romans 3:23 still hold true for him?
5. If so, what was the difference between the infant John and the infant Jesus in terms of their ability to be a specimen of perfect humanity?

So far, the answers I've received from postlapsarians reveal that they generally do not believe it is possible to always be filled with the Spirit. And that concession is made for the sake of preserving the belief that sin and character must be volitional.

MM (and anyone else interested), I would like to get your answers to these questions to see how your understanding of character and sin fits with the rest of the puzzle. Thanks.

He might have inherited them, but to a lesser degree. For example, I inherited a disposition to eat unhealthy things. Maybe He inherited the same disposition, but not as strong as mine. WDYT?

Since Romans 3:4 advises us "that God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;" Something must be wrong with man's thinking, not God's.

asygo, I have been considering your quote from AH, regarding "John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth."

Sorry, I haven't been following the discussion to closely so you may have already considered this. But my study brings me to acknowledge that, there is much to be considered about prenatal influence in the life of a child and in character development. Ellen has written some on this; if I might share some of what I have found in her writing, as well as in scripture, to be considered.

Luke 1:15 also states that "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Doesn't Luke 1:6 say of the parents of "John the baptist": "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

"If we live in communion with God, we too may expect the divine Spirit to mould our little ones, even from their earliest moments."

In reading the whole quote from AH. I am given the impression that it is possible or potential for a child to be filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth. Prenatally if both parents are righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Perhaps having a laying on of hands prenatally even, by a minister of the Lord.

Samuel was also a child of special birth and one dedicated to the Lord's service. 1 Samuel 2:18 "Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod." And in 1 Samuel 3 when Samuel was yet a child that the Lord begin communicating with him.

Indeed, the study of prenatal influences is very enriching, but rather scary for potential parents. I did a study on that a while back (when I was in the midst of dealing with prenatal influences), but I'm not sure where it is now.

But there's something very important here:

John's privilege was not limited to him. The same privilege is available to "regular" people like us. Therefore, the implications of being born filled with the Spirit is very important and personally relevant to everyone.

The promise of being filled with the Spirit should be most precious to us. Our hope is grounded on what the Spirit does in and through us as much as what Jesus did for us. But I tremble whenever I remember how many of those who believe that the power to overcome sin is available to us, do not believe that the power to remain constantly connected to the Spirit is also available to us.

John Norton Loughborough tells in his book The Great Second Advent Movement, of Child preachers that where filled with the Spirit of God.


" Ellen White told him in his later life to tell what he had seen. The church leaders were instructed to free him to go among the churches recalling how the Lord had led in the early years. Brother Loughborough wrote a history of how the church began, calling it Rise and Progress of the Seventh-day Adventists. Ellen White stated in Letter 105, 1903, "Elder Loughborough's book should receive attention. Our leading men should see what can be done for the circulation of this book."

"When the plates of the book burned in the Review fire, he revised and updated his eyewitness account, and renamed it The Great Second Advent Movement, printing it in 1905, just when Ellen White was calling for the pioneers' stories to be told."

"John Norton Loughborough was an eyewitness of the founding of the SDA church, having traveled extensively with James and Ellen White, and having seen Ellen when she was in vision some 40 times. Brother Loughborough died in 1924, being the longest-lived pioneer." About GREAT SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT

" Nearly two thousand years ago, a voice of mysterious import was heard in heaven, from the throne of God, "Lo, I come." "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me. . . . Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God." Heb. 10:5-7. In these words is announced the fulfillment of the purpose that had been hidden from eternal ages. Christ was about to visit our world, and to become incarnate. He says, "A body hast Thou prepared Me." Had He appeared with the glory that was His with the Father before the world was, we could not have endured the light of His presence. That we might behold it and not be destroyed, the manifestation of His glory was shrouded. His divinity was veiled with humanity,--the invisible glory in the visible human form. {DA 23.1}"

"In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation. "Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:8. As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him." Isa. 53:5. {DA 25.1} "

" Among the Jews there were yet steadfast souls, descendants of that holy line through whom a knowledge of God had been preserved. These still looked for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers. They strengthened their faith by dwelling upon the assurance given through Moses, "A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you." Acts 3:22. Again, they read how the Lord would anoint One "to preach good tidings unto the meek," "to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives," and to declare the "acceptable year of the Lord." Isa. 61:1, 2. They read how He would "set judgment in the earth," how the isles should "wait for His law," how the Gentiles should come to His light, and kings to the brightness of His rising. Isa. 42:4; 60:3. {DA 34.2}"

"The fullness of the time had come. Humanity, becoming more degraded through ages of transgression, called for the coming of the Redeemer. Satan had been working to make the gulf deep and impassable between earth and heaven. By his falsehoods he had emboldened
35
men in sin. It was his purpose to wear out the forbearance of God, and to extinguish His love for man, so that He would abandon the world to satanic jurisdiction. {DA 34.4}"

"Satan was exulting that he had succeeded in debasing the image of God in humanity. Then Jesus came to restore in man the image of his
38
Maker. None but Christ can fashion anew the character that has been ruined by sin. He came to expel the demons that had controlled the will. He came to lift us up from the dust, to reshape the marred character after the pattern of His divine character, and to make it beautiful with His own glory. {DA 37.3}"

" The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the
49
beasts of the stall. Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. Yet this was but the beginning of His wonderful condescension. It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}"

The line of Jesus through Mary (John's line must have been similar as Mary and Elizabeth were cousins) I suspect into which Jesus was born was "that Among the Jews there were yet steadfast souls, descendants of that holy line through whom a knowledge of God had been preserved." and to which, "A body hast Thou prepared Me."


Luke 1:35 & Luke 2:23 I have written in my Bible, His character in connection with these two text.

Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Luke 2:23
"(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)"

It is interesting what happened when Mary visited Elizabeth. "Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

"Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 49.1}"

"Wonderful in its significance is the brief record of His early life: "The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him." In the sunlight of His Father's countenance, Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Luke 2:52. His mind was active and penetrating, with a thoughtfulness and wisdom beyond His years. Yet His character was beautiful in its symmetry. The powers of mind and body developed gradually, in keeping with the laws of childhood. {DA 68.2}"

"As a child, Jesus manifested a peculiar loveliness of disposition. His willing hands were ever ready to serve others. He manifested a patience
69
that nothing could disturb, and a truthfulness that would never sacrifice integrity. In principle firm as a rock, His life revealed the grace of unselfish courtesy. {DA 68.3}"

"With deep earnestness the mother of Jesus watched the unfolding of His powers, and beheld the impress of perfection upon His character. With delight she sought to encourage that bright, receptive mind. Through the Holy Spirit she received wisdom to co-operate with the heavenly agencies in the development of this child, who could claim only God as His Father. {DA 69.1}"

"From the earliest times the faithful in Israel had given much care to the education of the youth. The Lord had directed that even from babyhood the children should be taught of His goodness and His greatness, especially as revealed in His law, and shown in the history of Israel. Song and prayer and lessons from the Scriptures were to be adapted to the opening mind. Fathers and mothers were to instruct their children that the law of God is an expression of His character, and that as they received the principles of the law into the heart, the image of God was traced on mind and soul. Much of the teaching was oral; but the youth also learned to read the Hebrew writings; and the parchment rolls of the Old Testament Scriptures were open to their study. {DA 69.2}"

I found this quote to reflect what Ellen has to say regarding prenatal state.

Some things should be made clear before we proceed. According to the secular view, we are born with personality traits, not character traits; character traits begin to be developed (learned) some time after we are born.

“Although character is related to personality, it is not the same thing. Personality is primarily inborn traits, while character consists of learned behavior.” (http://www.school-for-champions.com/character/what_is.htm)

But Ellen White does not use the word “personality” in the way it’s used nowadays. So, for her, we are born with a character, because we are born with character traits.

Also the secular view teaches you are not born with moral (character) traits – you learn them; while Ellen White teaches we are born with moral traits – we are born selfish, with a disinclination to virtue, inclined to disobedience, etc.

During judgment, what is the difference between the character we are born with and the character we ourselves develop? Are we condemned based on the traits and tendencies we inherit?

God condemns sin, and "selfishness is sin" (ST, April 13, 1891 par. 3).

Our inherited tendencies to evil are elements of selfishness.

"Our minds and characters must become as the mind and character of Christ. Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure." {LHU 326.4}

The person is not condemned for sins he/she is not aware of, as in the case of children, but this is just because of Christ's sacrifice. However, if Christ was born with His own elements of selfishness (evil tendencies), what sacrifice could make provision for Him?

Which one of the following definitions of sin takes into account the idea that we are condemned, even before we are born, based on the traits and tendencies and character we will inherit?

Romans
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

James
4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

1 John
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1 John
5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

The verses in 1 John.

We will be judged not by what we start with, but by what we do with it in the light of the resources available to us. IOW, we are judged not by what we were, but by what we are. That's why there's a possibility of the saved being lost, and the lost being saved.

Arnold, do you agree with Rosangela that we are condemned, even before we are born, based on all three of the things listed above:

1) inherited, uncultivated traits

2) inherited, uncultivated tendencies

3) inherited, uncultivated character

Also, in what way do the verses in 1 John describe the sins related to each of the three things listed above as it applies to people before they are conceived or born?

Mike,

The first commandment requires us to love God first. Selfishness means loving oneself first (whether one is aware of this or not). Therefore, it's a transgression of the very first commandment.

I wouldn't say we are condemned before we are born (will fetuses be resurrected?); I would say we are born condemned.

Rosangela, I agree we are born condemned - but for very different reasons. You seem to be saying we are born condemned based on the sinful traits and tendencies and character we inherit. Whereas I believe we are born condemned based on the sins we ourselves have committed. "All have sinned." True, infants commit sins ignorantly, nevertheless, the blood of Jesus is required to atone for them.

Do we inherit character?

No! We inherit character traits and tendencies which cause us to begin developing sinful character from the moment we are capable of conscious thought.

I don't think we are condemned by evil traits and tendencies. We are, however, condemned by evil character. And if a baby is born with an evil character, then he starts out in the hole, so to speak.

Well, we differ because, as I see it, Ellen White says clearly we inherit a sinful character, and what makes our character sinful is the selfishness all of us inherit.

Arnold, I agree. We are not condemned based on the sinful traits and tendencies we inherit. However, you wrote "if a baby is born with an evil character". The word "if" implies you're not sure. I believe we are born sinning. "All have sinned." But I do not believe we are born with a well developed character. Character is the result of repeatedly, habitually acting out the unholy thoughts and feelings that come into mind via sinful flesh nature.

Do you agree?

I believe, taking into consideration everything else she wrote about it, that by "character" Sister White means predisposed traits and tendencies. Since character is the byproduct of repetitious choices and behavior, it is clear to me that we are not conceived or born with character.

Nor are we condemned based on the sinful, selfish quality of the traits and tendencies we inherit. Also, traits and tendencies cannot commit a sin. They can only clamor for sinful expression. They can only tempt us from within to sin. Sinning is the stuff of choice and character. What condemns us is the sins we commit and the sinful character we develop.

Sin is not a person or place. Rather, sin is a thing. Sin is the transgression of the law. It is a state of doing, not a state of being. Sin is what we think, say, or do. It is not what we are. Do you agree?

Our traits of character compose our character. This to me is obvious.

But many have inherited traits of character that in no way represent the divine Model. There are many who have some defect of character received as a birthright, which they have not overcome, but have cherished as though it were fine gold, and brought with them into their religious experience. In many cases these traits are retained through the entire life. For a time no particular harm may be seen to result from them; but the leaven is at work, and when a favorable opportunity arrives, the evil manifests itself. {5T 418.1}

If we are Christ's representatives, we shall work the works of Christ. Let none of us deceive ourselves with the idea that we can carry into our religious life the crookedness of character, the unchristian traits, which have been transmitted to us as a birthright and strengthened by education. Through the plan of redemption, God has provided means for subduing every sinful trait, and resisting every temptation, however strong. {RH, December 22, 1885 par. 5}

Many have received, as their birthright, both strong and weak points of character, which are positive defects. These peculiarities color the entire life. {4T 360.2}

Another point is that sin stains the character. How can someone sin before having a character (in the case, an unborn baby)?

Man cannot change his own heart or atone for his own sins. He cannot remove one spot or stain of sin from the character. -Letter 33, 1894, pp. 3, 4. (To Lucinda Hall, August 23, 1894.)

If one single sin had tainted His [Christ's] character the stone would never have been rolled away from the door of His rocky chamber, and the world with its burden of guilt would have perished. --Ms. 81, 1893, p. 11.


Character is both what we are and what we do, and what we do almost always results from what we are. "Sinful" describes both what we are and what we do, therefore, sin is both what we are and what we do. Selfishness is sin, whether in us or in our acts.

Thank you for sharing. I think we both we agree God will judge us and determine our eternal destiny based on the character we develop, not on the character traits we inherit.

Believe me, I am sure. In this case, the "if" indicates conditionality, not doubt. IOW, whenever a baby is born with an evil character, that baby is born in need of a Savior.



If sin is defined as a state of being, then I agree. If sin requires a willful disregard of a known command, then I disagree. If sin is defined as inherent in one's physical actions, then the definition is flawed.



That's past tense. How can that be true for a newborn who has no actions in his account?



I disagree.

Take any baby. Does it have thoughts and feelings? Yes. To what are those thoughts and feelings directed? Invariably, they are directed to self; more specifically, to the gratification of self.

Question: Is it an easy matter to change the course of that baby's thoughts and feelings such that they are focused on God and glorifying Him? No.

That's why I say that their characters - thoughts and feelings - are well-developed. And by the time they are 7 years old, their characters will be much more solidified.



I don't agree that thoughts and feelings are generated by a "sinful nature" that is a separate entity from human nature, which is composed of the physical, mental, and moral. Unholy thoughts and feelings are generated by an unholy mind. There is nothing else in man that generates thoughts and feelings.

Of course, I'm guessing that you don't agree with that because that would make it impossible for Jesus to have the "sinful nature" and still have a holy mind. That's one reason why I'm not postlapsarian.

So babies have no thoughts or feelings?



If so, then babies cannot commit sin by your definition because they have neither choice nor character.



I definitely disagree.

Have you listened to my sermon Roots and Fruits? If you haven't, get it at http://seegoservices.com/SermonAudio.aspx. I addressed this topic there. Let me know what you think.

1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Are babies conceived or born righteous or unrighteous or something in between?

I believe they are born unrighteous, in need of a Savior.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Did you know that the word "transgress" (and its related forms) is not in the Greek in that verse? The word translated "transgresseth" is poieo in the Greek. And the word translated "committeth" is also poieo.

The basic definition of poieo is to make or to do.

So what do we have there? Whosoever poieo sin poieo also the law. Whosoever does sin does also the law. What's going on here?

"Law" (Gr nomos) is not in the verse. Instead, we have anomia - which is a combination of "a" (meaning "without" - ex: amoral, asynchronous) and "nomos." Essentially, anomia = without law, or as some translations have it, lawlessness. The 2nd occurrence of anomia in the verse is translated "transgression of the law."

To round out our quickie Greek review, the word translated "sin" is hamartia. This one should be familiar to many.

Here's what we have now: Whosoever committeth hamartia committeth also anomia: for hamartia is anomia. Here it is in modern English: Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (NKJV)

Now, back to the babies. Are babies born with nomos or anomia in their hearts and minds? Are they born with God's law of selfless love written on their hearts, or selfishness? Law or lawlessness? (You can refer to my sermon to find out what I think of God's law.)

Based on the Bible and SOP I've read over the years, (not to mention my experience with babies) I am convinced that we are born in anomia. In sin did our mothers conceive and bear all of us.

Plainly stated, anomia is death. And that's where we start out. If we are to live eternally, we must cross over from death to life, because nobody starts out having life.

Arnold, thank you for explaining your position. Yes, we are born selfish and sinning. We are born dead in trespasses and sins. We are inherently lawless and ungodly. Yes, we are born in desperate need of salvation and a Saviour, not because of the sinful flesh we inherit, but because of the sins we commit.

Our fallen flesh generates and communicates to our conscious mind unholy thoughts and feelings. Here is how it is explained in the SOP:


Yes, we are born with thoughts and feelings. Yes, we inherit sinful traits and tendencies. But we are not born with a character. True, thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character, but it is also true that character is the result of repetitious choices and behavior.

By definition, sin is the transgression of the law. Yes, it is the result of our lawless state and condition, but "sin" is not a person or place. It is a thing, a thought or word or deed that violates the law of God. The idea that "sin" is a state of being, as well as a state of doing, blurs the plain definition of sin. There is no support in the Bible or the SOP that "sin" is what we are. Yes, we are sinners because "all have sinned" but we are not sin.

Here is how sin is defined and described in the SOP:

Check this:

The SOP is clear that human nature is condemned; no actions mentioned.



Look at the end of that quote: "put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ."

When we speak of crucifying the flesh, EGW is clear that it is not referring to the body. Rather, then field of battle is in the thoughts.

I don't see in there anything that should be taken as teaching that there's a "fallen flesh" entity that generates bad thoughts and feeling to feed to us.



You say:

1. Babies have thoughts and feelings.
2. Babies have no character.
3. Thoughts and feelings combined make up moral character.

I don't see how all can be true at the same time.



John said, sin is anomia. Is anomia a thought, word, or deed?

Let's look at the opposite of sin: love. Can we define love as a thought or word or deed that fulfills the law of God? I don't think so. If you check out my sermon ( Roots and Fruits (sermon by Arnold Sy Go)) you'll see how I see the law.



Check these from your quotes:

Sin, just like the law, encompasses more than what we do.

What do you think of my analysis of Christ's command to be more righteous than the Pharisees? (It's in the sermon.)

Arnold, I listened to your sermon. Thank you. It was well done. Wish I could have been there. I agreed with nearly everything you said. How refreshing.

Jesus' comment about exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees is powerful. However, I do not think it defines righteousness. Paul's comment about his blameless obedience is also powerful. But neither does it define righteousness. The law requires holy hearts and behavior, not just outward obedience.

So in reality, regardless of how spotless they seemed on the outside, neither the Pharisees nor Paul were righteousness according to the law. They were neither righteous outside nor inside. You can't have one without the other.

Regarding sinful flesh: I guess we simply disagree. Yes, God condemns it, but not us. In other words, He does not condemn us because our flesh nature is sinful. By the way, as I see it, flesh and body are two different aspects of human nature. Do you agree?

Regarding character: Again, character is the result of repeatedly acting out the thoughts and feelings that come into mind. One thought or one feeling indulged does not constitute character.

I do not believe we become law or love when God implants law and love in our hearts and minds. We can choose to be law abiding and loving, but we do not thereby become law or love. Neither do we become sin by being born or by committing sins.

Is character inherited? I do not think so. True, we inherit traits and tendencies, but I do not believe we inherit character. I believe character is the result of repeatedly acting out the thoughts and feeling that come into mind. "God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character." (COL 331)

PS - This thread is full of Bible and SOP quotes to support what I believe. There is no need to repost them here.

That's exactly what I was trying to get across. I'm glad at least one person caught it.



I don't agree.

The body is an aspect of human nature, along with the mind and spirit - physical, intellectual, moral.

I see "fleshly" as descibing the corrupt condition of each of the three aspects of human nature. So, fleshly lusts that war against the soul are the corrupt inclinations of human nature - body, mind, spirit - that lead to destruction. But the flesh is not a separate or distinct entity from the body.

But as we all know, words have different meanings in different contexts. So, flesh can also mean the body. It can also mean animal life. Sarx takes on these different meanings.



Remember, Adam and Eve were condemned for indulging in sin once.



But inheritance and cultivation are not mutually exclusive. You speak as if the truth that character is developed nullifies the truth that character is inherited. It is not so.

Take the example of physical stature. A baby inherits a certain amount of it, then cultivates/develops the rest. The same holds true for character.

Note this quote I came across in my studies:

Notice that they were disqualified by something they inherited, not developed. But that does not nullify the fact that people also disqualify themselves by poor development of God-given gifts.

Mike,

I would like to make two comments. First, in the same way that "righteousness" describes a state of being, so does "sin."

"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness." {Con 31.3}

"If properly instructed, very young children may have correct views of their state as sinners and of the way of salvation through Christ." {1T 400.1}

Sin is not just an act, but a state of being.

Second, Ellen White describes selfishness as "the want [lack] of Christlike humility" (1MCP 271.3) and as "an attribute of Satan" (1MR 211.1). It's completely inconsistent, to me, to believe that Christ was born lacking humility, or was born with an attribute of Satan, but still could be the express image of God, and still could be considered a Lamb without spot.

That's a very good point.

Jesus was the express image of God. Was He born this way, or did He have to develop to become the express image of God?