M: "Sin is the transgression of the law." This is the only definition of sin in the entire Bible. Sin, therefore, is not a state of being. We are not sin. Sin is a state of doing. Sinning requires choice and behavior (which includes thoughts). We must choose to cherish or act out tempting unholy thoughts and feelings to be guilty of sinning. However, all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. Consequently, we must discern the difference between being tempted and being guilty. If we immediately recognize and resist tempting unholy thoughts and feelings we incur no guilt or condemnation. We are more than conquerors. Of course, we must abide in Jesus and trust the Holy Spirit to empower us to use our facilities of mind and body to successfully resist temptations unto God's honor and glory. Thank you, Jesus!

A: Therefore, a newborn baby is completely sin free. Being sin free, they should be disease free. Is this the case? . . . How is it that the transgression brings the curse upon the earth itself? Particularly if sin is only a thought? How is it the transgression becomes universal? How is it that disease is contracted from eating animals, is all disease is caused by sin, and sin is only a thought pattern?

"The Word was made flesh." {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.1}

"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Gal. 4:4. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.2}

"And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.3}

We have seen that in His being made of a woman, Christ reached sin at the very fountain head of its entrance into this world and that He must be made of a woman to do this. Also there was laid upon Him the iniquity, in the actual sins, of us all. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.4}

Thus all the sin of this world, from its origin in the world to the end of it in the world, was laid upon Him--both sin as it is in itself and sin as it is when committed by us; sin in its tendency and sin in the act: sin as it is hereditary in us, uncommitted by us; and sin as it is committed by us. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.5}

Only thus could it be that there should be laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Only by His subjecting Himself to the law of heredity could He reach sin in full and true measure as sin truly is. Without this there could be laid upon Him our sins which have been actually committed, with the guilt and condemnation that belong to them. But beyond this there is in each person, in many ways, the liability to sin inherited from generations back which has not yet culminated in the act of sinning but which is ever ready, when occasion offers, to blaze forth in the actual committing of sins. David's great sin is an illustration of this. Ps. 51:5; 2 Sam. 11:2. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 40.6}

In delivering us from sin, it is not enough that we shall be saved from the sins that we have actually committed; we must be saved from committing other sins. And that this may be so, there must be met and subdued this hereditary liability to sin; we must become possessed of power to keep us from sinning--a power to conquer this liability, this hereditary tendency that is in us to sin. {1905 ATJ, CWCP 41.1}

Defects and disease result in consequence of sin but not necessarily in consequence of sinning.

M: "Sin is the transgression of the law." This is the only definition of sin in the entire Bible. Sin, therefore, is not a state of being. We are not sin. Sin is a state of doing. Sinning requires choice and behavior (which includes thoughts). We must choose to cherish or act out tempting unholy thoughts and feelings to be guilty of sinning.

I repeat the question because you have not provided an answer.

The nature of sin has been obscured by the evil one. Sin not only affects humans, but all nature. Therefore, it can not be just a thought process on the part of humans.

Sin is in the genetics - it has to be, or this statement by AT Jones is a false statement.

One can be a transgressor of God's law without knowing it or realizing it, and "sin is the transgression of the law."

That is a very good question. Would you say John also was born with all the affects of sin, when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. So then you have to decide what affect being filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb had.

It's possible, even probable, that Jones was not infallible. If your position is founded on Jones being correct, you should seek a stronger foundation.

By asking the same question again, do you expect a different answer? Since I didn't provide the answer you wanted the first time, do you think asking the exact same thing again will yield the answer you seek?


You conflate sin with its effects. Maybe the nature of sin has been obscured from you.