Alfred T. Overstreet
Are men born sinners? Our
answer to this question will affect our attitude toward sin and will ultimately
affect our conduct as well. The Christian's views on sin cannot help but affect
his conduct. If the Christian believes he is born with a sinful nature and sins
unavoidably because of that nature, he is not likely to view his sins as the
serious crimes they really are. If he believes he has a nature that makes
holiness impossible, he is not likely to be concerned about sinning against
God. If he believes that God is his Creator and that he has been created with a
sinful nature, this must affect his attitude toward God and the justice of
God's dealings with man.
1. Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother conceive me."
The
language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality
demand a figurative interpretation of this text. For example, let's compare
Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21. If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach
the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can
be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will
some day go back into their mother's womb. Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative
expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative
interpretation of these two texts.
David
uses figurative language throughout his Psalms. In fact, in the 51st Psalm,
verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five
can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to
teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin. Also, verse eight can be made to teach
the doctrine that God breaks the Christian's bones when he sins, and that his
broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven. Another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the astonishing doctrine that
babies speak from the very moment they are born.
The
same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies
are born sinners, would, if applied to these passages (or if applied to many
other passages in the Scripture), allow for every kind of perversion and wild
interpretation of God's Word. David was not teaching in this passage that he
was born a sinner. He instead was confessing to God the awful guilt and
sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language the
language of figure and symbol to express that awful guilt and sinfulness.
This
is David's penitential Psalm. He is deeply humbled and repentant for the sins
he has committed, and he uses this strong language to confess his wickedness
and guilt. But if David wanted God to understand his language to mean that he
was a sinner by birth, the whole spirit of the Psalm is contradicted and
changed. It is no longer a Psalm of penitence for sin, but it is turned
into a Psalm of excuse for sin. For what better excuse could David
make for his sins than the excuse that he was born a sinner? But these are
not the words of a man making excuses for his sins; these are the words of a
man humbled and deeply repentant for having sinned against God.
But
if David intended to affirm that he was literally "shapen
in iniquity and conceived in sin," then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and
he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was
his Maker (Psalm 100:3; 119:73; 139:13-14). It may be objected that God created
only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural
generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited
sin nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a
sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under
which he would be born with that nature? God, of course.
There is no escaping the logical inference that is implicit in the doctrine of
an inherited sin nature. It is a blasphemous and slanderous libel on the
character of God.
But
one might as well reject the Scripture out of hand, if he does not want to
recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the
Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Scripture (Job
31:15; 33:4, Jeremiah 1:5, Malachi 2:10, Ecclesiastes 7:29; 12:1, Genesis
1:26,27; 6:7; 9:6, Psalm 82:6, I Corinthians 11:7, James 3:9, Zechariah 12:1,
Acts 17:25,29, Revelation 22:16).
Ecclesiastes
The
very idea that men can be born sinners is absurd. It is both a physical and a
moral impossibility to be born a sinner. It is a moral impossibility because
men cannot justly be sinners by birth. That men can be
sinners and guilty and condemned at birth is morally unthinkable.
It
is a physical impossibility to be born a sinner because of the nature of sin. Sin
is not a substance. It has no physical properties and cannot possibly be
passed on physically from one person to another. What is sin? The Scripture
says, "Sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4). So,
according to the Scripture, sin is an act or a choice that transgresses the law
of God. It cannot, therefore, be a substance because choice and substance are
contradictories. Is a wicked act a substance? Is disobedience, transgressions,
lawbreaking, or unrighteousness a substance? Is guilt a substance? No, they are
all moral concepts or moral qualities. And it is impossible for them to be
transmitted physically. When we speak of sin, we are describing the character
of an act. The word sin describes the character of an act as being wicked or
wrong.
Sin
is no more a substance than friendliness, goodness, or virtue
are substances. If sin is a substance that can be transmitted
physically, then virtue also must be a substance that can be transmitted
physically. And what would be the result if all this were true? Why, sinners
would beget sinners, and saints, of course, would beget saints!
To
interpret this text literally violates two fundamental rules of sound
scriptural interpretation. The first one is the rule that a text must not be
interpreted in such a way as to contradict the clear teachings of the Scripture
in other parts. The Scripture is the word of God, and so it is only reasonable
that each part should maintain a unity, harmony, and agreement with every other
part. God is not the God of confusion and contradiction. There is unity and
agreement throughout his Word.
A
literal interpretation is also inconsistent with the figurative and symbolic
language used throughout this Psalm. To arbitrarily give a literal meaning to
this one verse, without giving a literal meaning to the other symbolic
expressions in this Psalm, shows an inconsistency in interpretation that can
only be explained by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.
The
second rule that it breaks is the rule that a text must not be interpreted in
such a way as to contradict reality. We should forever remember that the
Scripture does not teach nonsense. It does not teach that God breaks our bones
when we sin (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that broken bones rejoice (Psalm
51:8). It does not teach that our sins are purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:7). It
does not teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born (Psalm
58:3). It does not teach that men go back into their mother's womb (Job
The
nature of sin, the nature of justice, and the nature of God are such that it is
impossible for men to be born sinners. First, sin is voluntary. Is it a
sin to be born with blue eyes, black hair, a small nose, or large ears? Is it a
sin to be born short or tall? Is it a sin to be born at all? No, because we
have no choice in the matter of our birth. Our birth, and everything we are and
have at birth, is ours completely involuntarily. Second, sin is not a
substance. It has absolutely no material or physical properties. Sin is an
act, and so it is impossible for it to be passed on physically. Third, sin
is a responsible choice. Newborn babies are not responsible. They do not
know the difference between right and wrong, and so cannot be responsible. A
child has no moral character at birth. Moral character can only belong to a
child when he has come to know the difference between right and wrong. A child
must first reach the "age of accountability" before he can sin
(Isaiah
God's
justice makes it morally impossible for men to be born sinners. Is it
possible that the infinitely just God could cause men to be born sinners
and condemn them to hell for the sin of Adam? Can the perfect
justice of God permit him to impute guilt to the innocent or punish the
innocent for the guilt of another? Is it really possible that innocent little
babies open their eyes in this world under the wrath of God and that they are
condemned to the torments of hell for the sin of Adam? Our whole reason revolts
at such an idea. Yet this is the incredible dogma that is taught as orthodoxy
in Christian churches today!
This
doctrine represents God as the most cruel and unreasonable being in the
universe. It represents God as condemning and sending men to hell for
a nature which they received without their knowledge or consent, and
with which God himself created them.
According to this doctrine, millions of heathen have been born into this world
with a sinful nature and have lived without ever hearing the Gospel; they have
sinned necessarily because of the nature with which they were born, and then
they have died and gone down into hell without a chance to be saved. What a blasphemous
slander this doctrine is upon the character and justice of God!
2. Ephesians 2:3
"And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
This
text is supposed to teach that babies are born with a sinful nature and that
they are under the wrath of God because of that nature. But isn't it a
monstrous and a blasphemous dogma to say that God is angry with any of his
creatures for possessing the nature with which He created them? What? Can
God be angry with his creatures for possessing the nature that He himself has
given them? Never! God is not angry with men for possessing the
nature he has given them, but only for the perversion of that nature.
The Scripture represents God as angry with men for their wicked deeds,
and not for the nature with which they are born.
The
word "nature" in this text has nothing at all to do with what man is
by birth. The word nature here refers to the character of contemporary
sinners before they were converted. The word nature can be used in two distinct
senses. It may refer to what man is involuntarily because of his birth, or it
may refer to what man is voluntarily, by choice and apart from birth. The
Apostle Paul uses it in the latter sense in the text under consideration. They
were not children of wrath by birth. They were children of wrath because of voluntary
wickedness. This is evident from the context of Ephesians 2:3. The
context shows that Paul did not have his eye on their birth at all when he used
the word nature. On the contrary, he had his eye wholly on the conduct of
contemporary sinners before they were converted to Christianity. He calls
attention in verses one and two to the fact that, before their conversion, they
had "walked according to the course of this world," in "trespasses
and sins." In verse three, he calls attention to their former fellowship
with other sinners in fulfilling the "lusts of the flesh" and "the
desires of the flesh and of the mind." And then, summing up the
wickedness, the guilt, and the ill-desert of their former life, he says "and
were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others."
But
to teach from this text that babies are born with a sinful nature, and that they come into this world under the awful
wrath of God because of that nature is a shocking doctrine. What? Is
God really ready to let loose the terrors of his anger and the consuming fires
of his wrath upon innocent little babies for the nature with which they are
born? Shame on the church for teaching such an abominable, God-dishonoring
doctrine!
Adam
and Eve had two natures; yet we know that they were not created with two
natures. They had the nature they were created with, which was good and
upright, and they also had a sinful nature after they had sinned. It was this
last nature, a voluntary nature, which made them "By nature the children
of wrath." Men may have a nature in three distinct ways:
1. By birth. This is the good and upright nature with which we
are all created.
2. By having
sinned and come short of the glory of God. This is a voluntary nature. It is
the nature that makes us enemies of God, children of the devil, and "by
nature the children of wrath."
3. By being
born again (John 3:3). This is also a voluntary nature in which we, by faith,
become "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4).
The
word "nature" in the Scripture, when it refers to our birth, never
refers to a sinful nature. This is shown in Romans 2:14, which says: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the
law, do by nature the things contained in the law..." Now,
the word "nature" in this text does refer to the nature we
receive at birth. But it is evident that the word "nature" used here
is not a sinful nature. For how would a sinful nature ever cause us to "do
by nature the things contained in the law"? A sinful nature would not
cause us to do the things contained in the law, a
sinful nature would only cause us to commit sin! (See Romans 1:26, 27; I
Corinthians 11:14; and Romans 2:14, 15, which show that our nature teaches us
the differences between right and wrong, but never causes us to do the wrong.)
To maintain that we are born with a sinful nature is to charge God, the
Author of our nature, with creating sinners. Men are not "born
short of the glory of God." They "sin and come short of
the glory of God." Our Lord took on human nature. We know therefore that
human nature is not sinful in itself. Finally, that babies
are not born with a sinful nature and are not "children of wrath" by
birth is evident from what Jesus said of them: "For of such is the
3. Job 14:4 "Who
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."
This
text is supposed to teach that sinful parents will bear sinful children. But
this is to completely ignore its context, which shows that Job had his eye
wholly on the frail and dying state of man, and not at all upon his moral state
(Job 14:1-6). The whole sense of what Job was saying was that no one can bring
other than frail and dying offspring from frail and dying parents. To
arbitrarily force this text to teach something that is completely foreign to
its context can only be another example of an interpretation dictated by a
prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.
If
this text teaches that a sinner invariably produces another sinner, it teaches
blasphemy. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, then
Mary, the mother of our Lord, was born a sinner. So if Job 14:4 really does
teach that a sinner must produce another sinner, there could be no way of
escaping the blasphemous conclusion that our Lord also was born a sinner.
4. Job
It
should first be said that these are the words of Eliphaz
and so cannot be quoted as inspired truth. God himself testified that Job's
comforters did not speak the truth (Job 42:7). But suppose we did accept
this verse as inspired truth, what does it teach? It certainly teaches nothing
about a morally depraved physical constitution. It merely implies the sinful
condition of all mankind, without saying anything about how men got that
way.
But
again, this text, like the last, if used to teach the constitutional sinfulness
of men, would teach the blasphemy that our Lord Jesus was born a sinner;
because he was a man and was born of a woman.
5. Job 25:4, "How
then can man be justified with God? or how can he be
clean that is born of a woman?"
Again,
these are the words of Bildad the Shuhite,
and so cannot be quoted as inspired truth. God himself testified that Bildad did not speak the truth (Job 42:7). So this
fact alone should be grounds to dismiss these verses in Job as teaching
Original Sin. If God himself said these men did not speak His Truth, then
nobody has the right to teach these verses as God's Truth. And if these men in
the book of Job are teaching Original Sin, and God
said they did not teach His Truth, then Original Sin is not God's Truth!
6. Romans 5:12, 18, 19
"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."
This
passage is interpreted by those who believe in the doctrine of original sin to
mean that because Adam sinned, men are now born sinners; that is, they become
sinners involuntarily and necessarily by inheriting a sinful nature from Adam.
On the contrary, Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam's sin
was not the sin of his descendants: "Them that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression." This shows that Paul did not
consider the sin of Adam to be their sin.
To
interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born
sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful
nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage;
for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners"
because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made
righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of
life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of
the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made
sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force
and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving
the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once
again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a
prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.
Paul
does not affirm an involuntary, necessary, or irresistible connection between
either the sin of Adam and mankind, or the righteousness of Christ and mankind.
Otherwise, verse 18 would teach the universal salvation of mankind: "The
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." We know that
universal salvation is not taught in the Scripture. Men are not saved
involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the obedience of
Christ. Nor are they "made sinners" involuntarily,
automatically, and necessarily because of the transgression of Adam. But
the context shows that men are "made sinners" in the same way
that they are "made righteous," that is, voluntarily or willingly.
Look
at Romans
Paul
did not teach that men are "made righteous" involuntarily through
Christ, nor did he teach that men are "made sinners" involuntarily
through Adam. He did not teach that sin is a substance that dwells in the
flesh. He did not teach that sin is inherited from Adam through "natural
generation." He did not teach that we receive a sinful nature from Adam
that is the "fountain and cause" of all our "actual" sins.
He did not teach that men are born sinners or that sin is transmitted
physically from Adam to his descendants. All of this has been the fabrication
of man's imagination. Paul's whole message, and only message, in this passage
is the message that the power of Adam's transgression to bring sin, death, and
condemnation upon all men has been transcended by a much greater power the
glorious, liberating power of God's grace in Christ Jesus, which breaks the
power of sin and brings justification, righteousness, and life upon all men
(Romans 5:15-21).
The Scripture doctrine of sin
The Scripture teaches that all men originate their own moral depravity (Genesis
6:12; 8:21, Deuteronomy 32:5, Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 23, Ecclesiastes 7:29). The
Scripture teaches that men sin and corrupt themselves. In fact, early in
mankind's history upon the earth, men had become so corrupt that God sent a
flood to destroy them.
"I will destroy man whom I
have created from the face of the earth." Genesis 6:7.
Observe
that God was angry with "man whom I have created." Certainly he was
not angry with them because of the nature with which he had created them. No,
it was because they had corrupted themselves that God was angry with
them.
"The earth also was corrupt
before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the
earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way
upon the earth." Genesis 6:11, 12.
To
"corrupt" means to make morally depraved. It means to pervert what is
good and upright. It means to make unclean what was once clean. It means to
spoil what was once good and unspoiled. The word corrupt always implies a
former state that was unspoiled, clean, good, or upright. It is never used to
speak of the original created nature of man. It speaks of what man has become
because of spoiling or perverting the nature with which he was created.
Moral
beings have never needed a sinful nature to make them sin. Churches teach the
first sin ever committed was committed by the devil. He did not have a sinful
nature to make him sin. Churches also teach that a third of the angels fell
from heaven. They did not have a sinful nature to make them sin. And scripture
says both Adam and Eve sinned. They did not have a sinful nature to make them
sin. Then, why should it be thought necessary for men to be born with a sinful
nature to account for their sins? The Scripture does not teach that men must
have a sinful nature in order to sin; it teaches that men sin in spite of a
good nature:
"Lo, this only have I found,
that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many
inventions" (Ecclesiastes
The
above Scripture is very clear. God has created men upright, but they
have sinned in spite of an upright nature. This truth is taught directly, and
by implication, throughout the whole Scripture.
The
following verses also show that we are created in the image and likeness of
God, and therefore with a good and upright nature (Genesis
God
has created man upright and without sin. He has created man in his own image
and likeness with sensibility, intellect, reason, conscience, and free will.
Man has all the faculties and powers of moral agency. He knows right from
wrong. The law of God is written in his heart. He is free and knows
himself to be free and able to obey the law of God. His conscience approves his
right conduct and condemns his wrong conduct.
All
men, everywhere, have these same moral faculties and powers. A heathen man may
be ignorant and primitive, but the law of God is written in his heart. His
conscience approves his right conduct and condemns his wrong conduct. He has
the same moral consciousness of a standard of right and wrong as any man who
knows the Scripture (Romans
All
men, everywhere, know themselves to be free and responsible moral agents. They
know they are accountable for their deeds. They know this because
the moral nature with which God has created them testifies to them of these
truths. Some men deny this and claim that man's conscience, his knowledge of
right and wrong, and his ideas of responsibility and accountability, are not
really innate revelations of his nature, but are merely learned and changeable
convictions, acquired through reading the Scripture, through religious
instruction, or through the influence of society and environment.
But
in spite of what some men say, the fact remains that all men know intuitively
that they are responsible and accountable for their actions. An absolute
standard of right and wrong is revealed and apparent to all men. Man's moral
agency and his responsibility and accountability are so apparent that he cannot
rationally deny them. He can no more deny them than he can deny his existence.
This can be shown from the following:
1. Let
someone come up to you, and without any provocation, hit you in the face. Would
you need to be acquainted with the Scripture, or would you need to know that
society frowned on such conduct, to know that you had been wronged? What man
ever needed the Scripture or religious instruction to know that it is wrong for
someone to forcefully take what is not his? Do you need the Scripture to know
that it is wrong for a person to insult you, lie about you, or abuse you in
some way? Could any society convince itself through education that it is really
right to hate, lie, steal, and murder or that it is wrong to love and do good to its neighbor? To maintain that hatred, murder,
lying, stealing, and every other kind of meanness and injustice are wrong only
in the eyes of those who have been taught to frown upon them is sublimely
ridiculous.
2. This is
because right and wrong are first truths of reason,
self-evident truths derived or given to us from our nature and relations as
moral beings, and not from the philosophy, teaching, or arbitrary will of
society. Right and wrong do not even derive from the arbitrary will of God. For
if the arbitrary will of God made law right, then God could command any law to
be right. He could command: "Thou shalt hate,
thou shalt lie, thou shalt
steal, thou shalt covet thy neighbor's wife, thou shalt be selfish, and thou shalt
seek the misery and unhappiness of thy neighbor." And upon the supposition
that God's arbitrary will made law right, it would be right to lie, steal,
hate, and do everything possible to make mankind miserable and unhappy. But
God's law is declaratory. He has declared to us the law of our nature. He
has declared to us the same law of right and wrong that is founded in and
revealed to us by our nature, necessities, and relations as moral beings.
3. Jesus
recognized that there is a common standard of right and wrong revealed to all
men when he gave the Golden Rule: "And whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets"
(Matthew 7:12). If men did not have a common knowledge of right and wrong
revealed to them in and by their nature, they could not obey the Golden Rule,
because obedience to the Golden Rule depends upon a subjective knowledge,
common to all men, of right conduct toward others.
4. The claim
that morality is only a changing thing, which is established in each time
context by the society in existence, has missed the point. For although it is
true that different societies accept or permit things that other societies do
not permit, still, man's innate convictions of right and wrong remain the same.
What a man or a society will permit and the convictions of conscience are two
different things. For instance, a man may himself be a thief and a liar. But
does that mean that he has no convictions against stealing or lying? If someone
steals from him, will he claim that there is nothing wrong with stealing? What
liar ever said, "I see nothing wrong with lying.
I love and admire liars. In fact, I just love it when people lie to me."
Or what murderer would ever say, "I see nothing wrong with murder; in
fact, if someone attempted to murder me, I would put up no resistance at
all."
5. If there
were no common standard of right and wrong revealed to man by his nature, we
could have no human government. In fact, human government would be a mere
imposition were it not for man's moral nature and would be ridiculous, as
ridiculous as a moral government over animals. The very fact that men do have
human government shows that men know themselves to be responsible moral agents.
It shows that they have innate convictions of right and wrong, and that they have
a conscious knowledge of responsibility and accountability.
6. But the
fact that human government is judged to be unjust, if it makes arbitrary law or
imposes unjust penalty, shows that there is an ultimate standard of right and
wrong, a law revealed in our nature which all men know and appeal to.
For instance, let a judge decide that he wants to sentence a convicted
murderer to only one day in jail, and see if society does not rise up as one
man to denounce the injustice of the sentence! But what does society appeal to
in pronouncing the sentence unjust? Of course, it appeals to that self-evident
standard of right and wrong which is revealed to all men in their moral nature.
Or let us imagine that all the laws of our land are repealed overnight, and new
laws are imposed; such as the following: "It is a felony, punishable by
life imprisonment to do anything good for your neighbor. All citizens are
required by law to seek the misery and hurt of their neighbor. Therefore, all
citizens are required to lie, steal, kill, and in other ways abuse their
neighbors and seek to deprive them of their rights. In keeping with this new
law (which cannot violate any absolute standard of righteousness and justice,
since there is no natural law of justice, but all of man's convictions of right
and wrong are merely the result of education and environment, and so can be
changed at will without infringing upon anyone's rights) all men who have been
imprisoned for past crimes will now be set free. (For there
is no such thing as a self-evident standard of criminal action, because our
convictions of wrong-doing are wholly dependent upon environment and education,
and so can be changed at will.) Therefore, any citizen who does right
and who does not do wrong will be sentenced to life imprisonment, and those
citizens who will devote their lives to being selfish and seeking the misery of
others will have the favor of this government."
Now, this supposition is ludicrous. But it would not seem ludicrous at
all were it not for the innate knowledge of right and wrong in all men which
makes them see it as ludicrous. The very fact that it is so obviously ludicrous
to everyone shows that everyone has the same innate knowledge of right and
wrong.
7. Language
shows that all men have the same innate ideas of justice, right and wrong, and
accountability. Words such as sin, wickedness, justice, injustice, right,
wrong, good, evil, obligation, accountability, innocence, and guilt are just a
few of the words which men use to express innate moral concepts that all men
have. Man's language is a mirror of his rational moral nature.
8. Novelists
know that all men have the same standard of right and wrong revealed to them in
their nature. They do not write different novels for the wicked than they do
for the righteous. The reason is that both wicked men and good men have the
same standard of right and wrong revealed to them in their nature. It is not
necessary for a novelist to write two versions of his novel, one for good men
and another for bad men. For to write a novel in which the hero is evil and
unjust would offend the conscience of both wicked and good men. The hero of the
novel is never described as a bad man. He is always described as a good man, a
just man, and a courageous man. And when the reader (even the reader who is
wicked and unjust) sees that he is just and fights against evil, he will
identify with him and experience satisfaction when he finally triumphs. Wicked
men do not identify with the villain because of their irresistible convictions
of justice, which by a law of necessity cause them to take sides with
righteousness, justice, and goodness. The truth is that all men, whatever
their character, have a common awareness of right and wrong. God has written
his law in the hearts of all men!
9. All men,
without exception, know that doing good to others rather than evil is their
obligation. They know that kindness ought to be repaid by gratitude and not by
hatred. If a man were to repay a kind deed with a hateful deed, his act would
be considered wrong by all men. All men, without exception, know that they are
under an obligation to govern their own conduct by the same rules as they think
binding upon other men. There is only one adequate explanation of all this: man
is a rational moral being created in the image of God, with the law of God
written in his heart, and he cannot escape the testimony of that law!
10. The fact that men will deny the
wrong they have done shows that they recognize an absolute standard of right
and wrong. For instance, a man is accused of lying, cheating, or stealing. If
the accusation is true, why does he deny it? It can only be that he recognizes
that what he has done is wrong, for he would have no reason to hide or deny
what he has done if he did not recognize it to be wrong.
11. The fact that men blame other men
for wrongdoing shows that all men have the law of God written in their hearts.
For instance, if someone's car is stolen, he would never say, "Oh, I don't
blame whoever stole my car. After all, there is nothing wrong with stealing.
People just think it's wrong to steal because society has educated them that
way." The employee who is cheated out of his wages by his employer doesn't
say, "Oh, he hasn't done anything wrong. He just learned a different set
of ethics than most of us." All men resent unjust treatment when they are
treated unjustly. If anyone abuses them with degrading or filthy language, they
will be offended and blame the one who has abused them. And if anyone were to
attempt to explain to them that they have not really been wronged and that they
just think they have been wronged because of their religious education or
environment, they will judge that person a fit candidate for the crazy house. The
truth is that all men blame other men for wrongdoing, and this is true even if
they know that they themselves are guilty of the same things. A man may be a
liar, a thief, and a cheat himself, but he still judges those attributes as
wrong in others. Whoever heard of a liar who was happy to be deceived by
another liar? What liar would ever say, "I just love and admire liars;
they are so noble!"?
12. There is no escaping the fact that
men have a common awareness of right and wrong and that they have this awareness
without ever having read the Scripture, and without the shaping or teaching
influence of society. Man's knowledge of right and wrong is not the product of
society. On the contrary, it is because of man's innate knowledge of right and
wrong that an ordered society can and does exist with some degree of cohesion
and decency. In fact, it is only man's common awareness of right and wrong,
given him in his nature, that keeps society half-way on the track of decency
and order. I say "half-way" because, although our moral nature forces
irresistible convictions of right and wrong upon us, it cannot force us to do
the right. We, as free moral agents, are able to obey or disobey the law of our
nature.
13. Man's whole system of human
government, with its law and its penalty for the broken law, is founded and
built upon his common awareness of responsibility and accountability. Without
this awareness, human government would not and could not exist. Therefore,
human government with its laws, penalties, police forces, courts, judges, etc.,
gives mute testimony to the fact that all men know themselves to be moral
agents and fully responsible and accountable for their deeds. Otherwise, moral
government would be an imposition and senseless, as senseless as a moral
government over the beasts of the field.
The Scripture represents man to be
just exactly what he knows himself to be, and that is why men cannot escape the
conviction that the Scripture is the Word of God; it represents him as being a
responsible, rational moral being, with moral faculties and powers which enable
him to know and do right, but who has sinned against the light of his nature.
It represents him as having resisted his God-given reason, trampled on
conscience, and abused free moral agency. In short, it represents man as
being under God's just wrath, not for being born with a sinful nature, but for
resisting, abusing, and perverting the faculties and powers with which God
created him. It should be forever remembered that obedience to God's law is
in accord with the moral nature that God has given us, but that disobedience to
God's law resists and abuses the moral nature that God has given us.
The
Scripture doctrine of sin is this: men have been created upright, in the image
and likeness of God, with the law of God written in their hearts, with a
conscience, with the dazzling light of a rational nature, and with all the
faculties and powers of free moral agency. But men have corrupted themselves.
They have sinned against their God-given nature, and have come short of the
glory of God. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright;
but they have sought out many inventions" (Ecclesiastes
Finally,
it should be emphasized that sin is never spoken of as a calamity or a
misfortune in the Scripture. It is spoken of as a crime and rebellion. But
there could be no greater calamity or misfortune in heaven or in earth than
that of being born sinners! If men were born sinners and could not help but
sin, they would never be treated as criminals and rebels against the government
of God. Instead, they would be considered of all the creatures of God, the most
worthy of pity, sympathy, and compassion. They would be considered supremely
unfortunate, and their sin the greatest misfortune and calamity in the
universe.
If
the sinner really were unfortunate, the Scripture would have to be rewritten,
because it never speaks of the sinner as unfortunate or worthy of pity, but
rather as being wicked and worthy of everlasting punishment. Remember how God judged
wicked sinners in the days of Noah. He overthrew them with a flood and sent
them quickly to their deaths (Genesis 6:5-13). Now, it is absolutely
unbelievable that God would do such a thing if it were true that those sinners
were born morally depraved and could not help but commit sin.
Look
how God judged the cities of
Then,
think of the multitudes upon multitudes of heathen who have died in their sins
and gone down into the grave, without a knowledge of the
Gospel. It is incredible beyond imagination that God would send them to hell if
they were born sinners and committed sin because of the nature with which they
were born! No, the whole Scripture would have to be rewritten if the doctrine
of original sin were true because it contradicts the letter and the spirit of
every page of the Scriptures.
Objections answered
1. We
know from observation that babies are born with a sinful nature, because they
fuss and scream, refuse to eat, go into a rage, throw tantrums, etc.
Answer: But we know that babies fuss and scream,
refuse to eat, and throw tantrums before they know the difference between right
and wrong. Do those who advocate the doctrine of original sin want to advance
the argument that an inherited sin nature makes little babies sin before they
even know what it is and before they know that they are sinning? This makes sin
such a completely necessary, involuntary, and impersonal thing that there could
never be any blame or guilt for it. If it is true that little babies sin
because of a sinful nature and before they even know they are sinning, then it
follows that they are completely automated and that their sin is completely
necessary, involuntary, and impersonal. If all this were true, you could no
more blame sinners for being sinners than you could blame a clock for striking
the hour, something it does impersonally, involuntarily, and necessarily
because it was built to do so.
But
babies fuss and scream, refuse to eat, throw tantrums, etc., not because of a
sinful nature, but in response to pain and discomfort, the likes and dislikes
of appetite, and the urges and desires of the sensibility. True, they do things
which we think are selfish and sinful, and things
which would in fact be selfish and sinful if they did them knowing them to be
wrong. But while they have no knowledge of right and wrong, their actions have
no moral character, and therefore their actions are not and cannot be
"sinful." It is only when a child's reason has developed and he has a
clear understanding of right and wrong (an understanding of his accountability
and the moral nature of his actions) that he becomes a moral agent and is
responsible and accountable for his actions.
2. We know from
observation that sin is inherited because we see children inherit the sinful
traits of their parents.
Answer: Children do inherit physical traits from their
parents, but they do not and cannot inherit moral traits or sin from their
parents. Children only appear to inherit the moral traits of their parents. The
whole home environment, with the continual example of parents and other family
members, has an enormous influence upon a child's behavior; and it would be
astonishing if children did not seem to inherit the moral traits of their
parents, whether good or bad.
But
those who will insist that the moral traits of the parents are inherited by the
children must answer the questions: Why is it that many children
"inherit" traits that are the exact opposite of their parents? Why is it that brothers and sisters in the same family will have
moral traits the exact opposite of each other? Is the "inheritance"
of sinful traits a hit or miss thing? The answer is that there is no such thing
as inheritance of sinful traits. And, of course, we know that it is impossible
to inherit either the good or bad moral traits of parents. There is nothing
physical about sin; sin is a voluntary and personal act, and is
non-transferable.
3. But why is it always
easier to sin than to do good? And why is it that all
men do in fact sin? Doesn't this show that men are born with a sinful nature?
Answer: First, this objection assumes that since it is so
easy to sin, and since sin is universal, this has to be explained by an
inherited sin nature. But the Scripture gives another explanation for the
universal existence of sin: universal temptation.
But
why is it so much easier to sin than to do good? It
has always been easier to sin than to do good. Adam
and Eve did not have a sinful nature, but they sinned just as easily as any of
their descendants. What was it that caused them to sin so easily? It was not a
sinful nature, it was temptation. Adam and Eve were tempted and they
sinned so easily, so naturally, so spontaneously that it would almost seem that
they had a "sinful nature" before they sinned.
It
has always been easier to sin than to resist temptation. James
Christ
"suffered" under temptation, not because of a sinful nature, but
because resisting and overcoming temptation involves suffering. Adam and Eve
did not resist temptation. That is why they sinned so easily. They took the
easy way of pleasure and self-indulgence, which is always easier than the path
of obedience to God.
But
if the fact that it is easier to sin than to do right implies that men are born
with a sinful nature, we would be left with the unscriptural conclusion that
both Adam and Christ had sinful natures. Adam, because he sinned so easily,
naturally, and spontaneously; and Christ, because it was necessary for him to
"endure," "suffer," "resist," and
"strive" to overcome sin.
James
tells us how all men are tempted. "But every man is tempted when he is
drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death" (James
Sin is universal, not because of an inherited sin nature, but because
temptation is universal, and, because when men are tempted, they choose to
indulge their own desires, rather than obey the law of God written in their
hearts.
4. But if men were not
born sinners, it might be possible for someone to live their whole life
absolutely free from sin, and they would not need to be saved by Christ, but
could be saved by their works.
Answer: This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly
nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies
that it would be criminal, wicked, and sinful for anyone to live a life without
sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be
possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men
to be depraved sinners, that he wants them to be born
with a sinful nature so that he can have the honor and glory of saving them. It
implies that it would be impudence, arrogant pride, and high treason against God
to live a life in humble obedience to God and never rebel against him. It
implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his
life and never sinned against him. It implies that to please and glorify God we
must be forced to displease and dishonor him.
In a word, it implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey
God. And why? Because
if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be
saved. What logic! But this is an example of the type of reasoning that
must be resorted to in order to defend the dogma of original sin. But we have
already seen that if men are not free, and if they sin by a necessity of their
nature, they cannot be responsible for their actions and their actions cannot
have moral character anymore than a gun that is used to commit murder can have
moral character.
What?
A man who must sin necessarily because of an inherited sin nature responsible
and guilty for what he cannot avoid? If it were true that we were born with a
nature that deprived us of the liberty and ability to obey God (which is the
doctrine of Augustine and original sin), if it were true that we were born with
a nature that made us disobey God, and if it were true that we were created by
God under a law that made us by nature sinners and rebels, we could never in
justice be blamed or punished for our sins. If we were unable by nature to obey
God, sin would not be a crime, but rather a calamity. Words in the Scripture
like pardon and mercy would have no meaning. God would be cruel and a tyrant
for condemning the unfortunate sinner to hell for what he could not avoid. The
offer of mercy and pardon to the sinner would be an insult. The truth is that
the doctrine of natural inability to obey God makes all the doctrines of the
Scripture absurd and irrational.
But
the objection we are considering both assumes and demands that men be born with
the natural inability to obey God, and it imputes the onus of pride,
self-righteousness, and even the despising of God's gracious plan of salvation
to the person who will not swallow all the absurdities of the original sin
dogma. One form of this objection is put in the following insinuating question:
"So you think that a person is able to live his whole life without sinning
and that he can be saved by his good works?" But the stigma of pride and
self-righteousness does not belong to the one who rejects the dogma of original
sin, for to recognize and admit that one is the author of his own sins, that he
is guilty for them, and that he is worthy of being sent to hell for them is not
self-righteousness, nor is it despising God's gracious plan of salvation. It is
just the opposite. It is humbling one's self in view of the guilt of one's
sins, and it is acknowledging one's need of God's mercy and salvation in view
of one's deserved punishment for his sins.
How
ridiculous and absurd, then, is the objection that "men cannot be free and
able to obey God, because if they were able, there would always be the
possibility that someone might do it and would not need to be saved"! How
foolish is the notion that God would be insulted,
profoundly humiliated, and his government subverted and overturned if men could
and did obey him! What supreme foolishness is the objection that "Someone
might possibly live his whole life without sin."
What! Would it really be a sin to not sin? Would it be wicked to be free
and have the ability to obey God? Would God be insulted, dishonored, and
confounded if someone in his kingdom lived all his life without sinning against
him? Would he consider it a catastrophe of the first magnitude if someone
actually did love and obey him perfectly from the cradle to the grave? It is
impossible! God does not have that kind of character.
5. But Paul taught that
the flesh is sinful and that sin dwells in the flesh. He spoke of "sin
that dwelleth in me" (Romans
Answer: It is true that Paul uses language in these texts
that appears to teach the doctrine of a sinful, physical constitution. But the
language that Paul uses is not literal; it is figurative. When the Apostle
speaks of the flesh in the sense of being sinful, he is never speaking of the
flesh in its literal or physical sense. This is evident from the following
verses in Romans (Romans 7:5; 8:8-9).
Paul
teaches in these verses that the Christian is no longer "in the
flesh." This makes it clear that when Paul spoke of the "flesh"
in the sense of sin, he was not referring to the physical flesh, because if he
were, the only way that we could no longer be "in the flesh" would be
to no longer be in the body. But Paul was not teaching some strange new
doctrine that Christians were now disembodied spirits. He was rather teaching
that they were no longer living to gratify their fleshly desires. They were no
longer living in sin.
Our
flesh and our bodies are not sinful in themselves, but they can be the occasion
to temptation, and we can give in to temptation and present our bodies as
instruments to sin, but it is we ourselves, living in our bodies, who are
sinful or righteous, according to the use we make of our bodies (Romans 6:12,13,19; 12:1; I Corinthians 6:12, 15, 19, 20).
Paul
did not condemn the flesh of man. He did not, in any way, condemn the physical
nature of man. This is evident because he thought of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
knew no sin, as a real man with human flesh. He believed in the resurrection
and a life in the body afterwards. He taught that the body of man is properly
the temple of the Holy Ghost, and that the body is an offering acceptable and
holy to God when consecrated to his service. He taught, also, that the body is
an instrument of righteousness for the Christian. And finally, he said that
those who are now new creatures in Christ Jesus are no longer "in the
flesh," making us understand that when he condemned the flesh and spoke of
it in a derogatory way, he was not speaking of the physical flesh. Paul uses the
word "flesh" to mean something very different from the physical
flesh. He uses it to speak of the sinful condition of men who are completely
given over to worldly and fleshly desires. And the fact that he uses the word
"flesh" to speak of a past state for the Christian, telling the
Christian that he is no longer "in the flesh," shows that he is not
speaking of the "flesh" in its literal, physical sense (Romans 7:5;
8:8-9).
The
Apostle Paul uses this kind of figurative language throughout his epistle to the
Romans. He personifies both sin and grace in Romans
We
know that sin is not something that lives or has personality. We know that sin
is a wicked choice or a wicked act committed by the sinner. It is an act or a
choice that transgresses God's law and, apart from the sinner who commits the
act or makes the choice, sin does not exist. Therefore, when the Scripture
speaks of sin as if it existed with a personality all its own and was living
and dwelling and reigning in the body of the sinner, we know that the language
is figurative. Its meaning is that the sinner is a slave to his lusts, that he
is ruled by his passions and desires. But to teach from such texts that sin is
a virus, a physical thing that can be transmitted from parents to offspring, is
to ignore reality and the teaching of the Word of God on the nature of sin.
Every kind of foolish and superstitious belief can be proved from the Scripture
if it is not interpreted according to the demands of context, language, common
sense, and reality. (An illustration of this is the passage in Romans 7:24-25,
which is wrongly used to teach that the Apostle Paul himself was in bondage to
sin at the time he wrote his epistle to the Romans.)
Finally,
those who insist that the phrases "sin that dwelleth
in me" and "sin which is in my members" speak of a literal,
physical fact, to be consistent, must interpret all the language of chapters 6,
7, and 8 of Romans as literal, physical fact. They must, to be consistent,
teach that the Christian literally is "not in the flesh," that is,
they must teach that the Christian has no body and that since the time of his
salvation, he has been a disembodied spirit. To be consistent, they must teach
that the Christian literally and physically was "crucified with
Christ" and was "buried with Christ" and was raised from the
dead to live again. And to be consistent, they must teach that all Christians
are literally living in dead bodies: "And if Christ be in you, the body is
dead because of sin..." (Romans 8:10).
But
of course, all those who plead for the doctrine of original sin know that these
verses are figurative and are used to speak of moral and spiritual changes in
the believer. Then why will they not be consistent enough to take the verses in
chapter 7 which speak of "sin that dwelleth in
me" and "sin which is in my members" as being figurative? It can
only be because of a prepossessed belief in the man-made doctrine of original
sin.
6. The Scripture says
that Levi paid tithes while yet in the loins of his father Abraham (Hebrews
7:9-10). This shows that we sinned in Adam; for we were yet in his loins when
he sinned.
Answer: But in what sense did Levi pay tithes while yet in
the loins of his father Abraham? It was not in an absolute sense, which would
have been impossible, because Levi had no personal existence at the time, but
only in a typical sense. The point that the writer to the Hebrews wanted to
make was that the Levitical priesthood was inferior
to, and superseded by, the priesthood of Christ, who had an unending priesthood
"after the order of Melchisedec," and to
prove that the Levitical priesthood was inferior to
that of Christ, he points out that Levi had descended from Abraham, who, as
great as he was, had still paid tithes to Melchisedec,
so that Levi also, as a descendant of Abraham (yet in the loins of Abraham when
he paid tithes), was also inferior and subservient to Melchisedec
and his priesthood. And in this typical sense only, as a descendant of one who
had shown he was inferior and subservient to Melchisedec
by paying tithes to him, had Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec.
The
writer to the Hebrews shows that he is speaking of Levi paying tithes in
Abraham in a typical sense by the language he uses. He says, "And as I may
so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes
in Abraham" (Hebrews
To
teach from this passage that either the good or the evil that our ancestors
have done is actually done by us is to wrest this passage from its context and
to torture it into teaching utter nonsense. For instance, such an idea would
make all the descendants of a Christian automatic Christians if his children
were yet in his loins when he believed. Also, it would seem to make all the
descendants of one who rejects the Gospel automatic unbelievers for coming out
of the loins of an unbelieving father.
In
fact, if this theory is true, every good act of a man or every evil act of a
man is counted as done by all of his offspring. But the problem with all of
this is that we know that many godly men have had descendants who were enemies
of God and vice versa. Abraham is an example of this. The Scripture says that
Abraham believed God and that his faith was counted unto him for righteousness, and Abraham is called the father of the
faithful because of his faith. But Abraham has had millions upon millions of
descendants who have not believed and have been lost. Yet according to the
theory under question, all of Abraham's descendants should have been justified
by his faith, for they were all yet in his loins when he believed God and was
justified. Esau was a descendant of Abraham but God said, "Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated" (Romans
The
problems with this nonsensical theory multiply when you realize that everyone of us have been "in the loins" of
numerous ancestors going all the way back to Adam. This means that we actually
participated in all the good and evil not only of Adam, but also of all our
intervening ancestors as well. What an awful lot of good and evil we have done.
We have all been busy for thousands of years in the loins of our ancestors
doing good and evil!
Now,
do we get to pick and choose among our ancestors, choosing the ancestors whose
deeds we like most, or must we heap them all together and take what they all
have done? I am afraid that to do the latter would make our character quite a
confused and conflicting thing. What if some of our ancestors were Christians
and others were unrepentant sinners? Would we balance the good ones out against
the bad ones and come up with what was left over?
7. But the Scripture
does teach that God condemns the children for the sins of the fathers. It says,
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me" (Exodus 20:5).
Answer: It is
true that this text would seem to teach that God condemns the children for the
sins of their fathers, but the text itself shows that God does not visit
the iniquity of the fathers upon innocent children. It is only upon those
children who hate and disobey him that he visits the iniquity of
the fathers.
First,
we have many direct statements in the Scripture which teach that God does not
punish the children for the sins of the fathers. Since we have these
statements, they should alert us to the fact that, if there is another
scripture that seems to contradict them, somewhere we have either taken the
scripture out of its context, or in some other way, misinterpreted it. The
following verses of the Scripture teach that God does not punish the
children for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel
From
the above passages, we know that it is contrary to the character of God to
visit the iniquity of the fathers upon those who are innocent. When God said,
in Exodus 20:5, that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, he was not talking of innocent or godly children. He was talking of
wicked and ungodly children who were following the wicked example of their
fathers. This is seen directly from the text itself, which says, "unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me." The
iniquity of the fathers is visited upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate God, and not upon children who are innocent
and obedient to God.
Jesus
makes the amazing statement in Matthew 23:31-35 that the scribes and Pharisees
would be guilty of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the
righteous blood of Abel right on down to the righteous blood of Zacharias, whom they slew between the temple and the altar.
Now, the scribes and Pharisees did not actually slay Zacharias
the son of Barachias, but they had the heart of a
murderer, and in a few short days they crucified the Son of God. The man who
willfully takes the life of another man is giving tacit approval to every
murder that has ever been committed or that ever will be committed. The rapist
gives his approval to every act of rape committed, just as much as if he had
committed those acts. And Jesus taught the compounded guilt of those children,
who, knowing the guilt of their fathers, go on and break the same commandments.
To commit the sins of our fathers is to justify their sins. It is to give tacit
approval to their wickedness, and so to justly deserve that the iniquity of our
fathers should be visited upon us. God never visits the iniquity of the fathers
upon those who are innocent. God is just and so cannot condemn the children for
the sins of their fathers, except when they willfully follow the wicked example
of their fathers.
8. But God can condemn
the whole human race for the sin of Adam if he wants to. God is sovereign and
can do anything he wants.
Answer: It is true that God is sovereign, but it is not true
that he is sovereign in the grotesque sense in which the advocates of original
sin make him out to be. To say that God is sovereign in the sense that he can
work injustice, unrighteousness, and sin is to slander the holy name of God.
The
idea that God's sovereignty gives him the liberty to work unrighteousness is
blasphemous and contrary to scripture: "Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). God is not sovereign, and has never
claimed to be sovereign, in such a grotesque sense. But the doctrine of the
above objection is that God can do what all men know to be unjust; that is,
condemn the whole human race for the sin of one man, and still be just and
righteous because he is sovereign. It is unbelievable that Christians, in order
to defend the doctrine of original sin, would so demean the character of God.
Those
who heartily believe in the doctrine of original sin and believe that God
condemned the whole human race for the sin of Adam "because he is
sovereign and can do whatever he wants to" must have about the same
concept of God as the heathen had of their false gods. They must fear him
because he is sovereign and has infinite power over them. However, it must be
difficult to love him with the overflowing love that comes from a confidence
and a delight in his moral perfections, since they believe a doctrine that
requires them to make the excuse that "God can do anything he wants
because he is sovereign."
God
cannot make evil become good and good become evil by a sovereign decree. He is
not sovereign in the sense that his "might makes
right." He cannot make a law that says, "Thou shalt
lie, steal, blaspheme my holy name, commit adultery, work evil, and hate your
fellow man." God is sovereign, but he cannot do anything sinful or unjust
just "because he is sovereign." The universal law of love and
righteousness is his law as much as it is the law of all his creatures. God
does not make evil right by an arbitrary decree, and for him to sovereignly decree a law which were contrary to his nature
and the nature of his creatures would be as much sin in him as it would be in
any of his creatures. God cannot and will not sin against the righteousness of
his nature. He will not put darkness for light, falsehood for truth, evil for
good, or unrighteousness for righteousness.
To
defend the obvious unrighteousness of the original sin dogma by saying that
"God can do whatever he wants because he is sovereign" is to demean
the holy name of God. The doctrine of original sin is infinitely dishonorable
to God. It makes him arbitrary, tyrannical, unjust, and cruel in his sovereignty.
God has never claimed to be sovereign in an arbitrary sense, in the sense that
he can do whatever he wills, even if it is unholy, unjust, or unrighteousness.
God is sovereign, and justly so, because all his ways conform to truth,
holiness, and righteousness.
9. You depend too much
on reason. You should only use the Scriptures to prove the doctrines of the
Scripture. If you depend on reason, you will be led into error.
Answer: Would the advocates of the doctrine of original sin
object to reason if the doctrine of original sin were reasonable? Why do the
advocates of original sin object to reason? It is because the dogma of original
sin contradicts reason! If our reason told us that it would be just for a whole
race to be condemned for the sin of one man, would they then object to reason?
If our reason told us that the heathen could justly be born sinners, commit sin
because of an inborn sin nature, die in their sins without a
knowledge of the gospel and a chance to be saved, and then be justly
condemned to the everlasting punishment of hell, would they then object to
reason? If our reason told us that moral character or sin, with its guilt and
condemnation, could be passed on in the physical constitution of man, would
they then object to reason? If our reason told us that a non-moral and
non-personal entity called "flesh" could, contrary to its nature,
take on personality and moral character and be sinful, would they then object
to reason? No. They object to reason because they know the original sin dogma
is absurd and unreasonable.
In
regard to using only the Scriptures to prove the doctrines of the Scripture,
almost any false doctrine can be proved by quoting texts from the Scripture, if
those texts are quoted without paying attention to context and language. We can
confirm this fact by pointing to the many false cults which appeal to Scripture
texts in order to verify their false teachings. So, should we object to reason
when it tells us that a doctrine cannot be true that is supported by proof-texts
from the Scripture which have been taken out of context, and which are used
without any regard to literal or figurative language or the general theme of
the passage from which they are taken, and which then "prove" a
doctrine that directly contradicts many other clear texts and fundamental
doctrines of the Scripture? Must we throw out reason when we come to the
Scripture? Is there something inherently evil about the faculty of reason? Are
ordinary common sense and the understanding that God has given us to be
despised and rejected when we come to the Scripture? No! The Scriptures never
require us to believe anything which the constitution of our own nature as
created by God forces us to reject as false, unjust, or impossible. The
fundamental truths of Christianity cannot be in manifest contradiction to
reason, and yet the original sin dogma does contradict reason and man's
irresistible convictions of justice.
10. In
the Scripture, the word "sin" in the singular refers to a sin
principle that dwells in us, or to original sin; and the word "sins"
in the plural refers to "actual sins" that flow from the sin
principle we have inherited from Adam.
Answer: Some advocates of original sin try to make out a
distinction in the Scripture between "sin"
in the singular and "sins" in the plural. According to them, the word
sin in the singular refers to the "sin principle," the "Adamic sin nature," "inbred sin," or
"original sin," but the word "sins" in the plural refers to
the acts of sin that flow from the "Adamic
nature" or the "principle of sin" that dwells in man's flesh.
This distinction between "sin" in the singular and "sins"
in the plural is completely artificial and unscriptural. There is no mention of
such a distinction in the Scripture.
There
is a scriptural sense in which sin is and must be a principle. It is a
principle because it flows from a single ruling choice of the heart or will
(Romans
All
sin and all virtue flow from the fountainhead of the heart or will. When the
heart is committed to the supreme and ultimate choice of selfishness, all the outworkings of that one ruling choice will be to gratify
self in the various forms that selfishness may take. A selfish person cannot
please or obey God because all his acts, even though many may be outwardly
righteous, are motivated by a heart consecrated to self. Paul said, "The
carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please
God" (Romans 8:7-8). The "carnal mind" in this passage is
speaking of a ruling preference of the heart that is carnal, selfish, or
sinful. While a man has a "carnal mind" it is impossible for him to
obey God, please God, or do anything good.
All
sin is a unit and all virtue is a unit that flows from one supreme and ultimate
choice of the will. There cannot be two opposite choices ruling the life at the
same time. There cannot be a mixed or a partial consecration and service to
God. There can only be one single governing choice of the heart; either love to God and others rule the life, or selfishness
rules the life.
Many
people in the churches today are deceived on this point. They believe that God
can and does accept a partial consecration of their
life to him. but God will accept nothing less than a
total dedication of ourselves to him, according to our knowledge of his will
(James
11. The doctrine of
original sin has been believed by the Church for almost 2000 years. How could
you and a few others be right, and everyone else be wrong?
Answer: This objection is considered by many to be conclusive
"How could the Church be in error for almost 2000 years? How could you be
right and everyone else be wrong?"
The
multitudes have been wrong before while the few have been right, and the Church
has been wrong before, protecting and giving sanction to error while resisting
and persecuting the few who have proclaimed the truth. Copernicus and Galileo
are well-known examples of this. Galileo taught the truth that the sun does not
go around the earth, but that the earth goes around the sun, and that the earth
spins upon its axis, giving the illusion that the sun is going around the
earth. But even though he taught the truth, the church resisted it and persecuted
him because from the second century A.D. on, the church had believed the theory
of Ptolemy that the earth was the unmoving center of the universe, and that the
sun moved around the earth. Copernicus had already proven that the theory of
Ptolemy was wrong, but the church rejected his proof because it did not fit in
with what it had believed for 1400 years. Galileo then constructed a telescope
and was able to demonstrate that Copernicus was right and that Ptolemy had been
wrong all those 1400 years. Instead of saying, "Thank you for correcting
our wrong beliefs," the Church promptly put Copernicus' work on its index
of prohibited books and warned Galileo to abandon his opinions and to abstain
from teaching, defending, or discussing them anymore. Galileo invited some
scientists and members of the Catholic clergy to look into his telescope and
prove for themselves that what he had said was the
truth, but some of them refused because they were afraid that their beliefs
would be proven wrong. Galileo was persistent and wrote a book proving the
falseness of the view which had been held by the Church for 1400 years. This
brought him under the wrath of the church. His book was banned by the church,
he was tried and found guilty by the Church Inquisition, he was compelled to
recant of all his Copernican doctrines, and he spent the last eight years of
his life under house arrest. It was 200 years later, in 1835, that the works of
Copernicus and Galileo were finally removed from the Church's index of
prohibited books.
So
the idea that the many are always right, and the few are always wrong is false
and invalid. If the argument that "the many must be right and the few must
be wrong" is valid and conclusive, then Martin Luther and the other
Reformers were totally deceived, and the whole Protestant Movement is a false
movement built upon error. For Martin Luther and a few other Reformers stood
alone against the whole Church to overthrow errors that had been taught and
believed for almost 1,500 years. There are other examples, as well. Jesus stood
alone against the man-made traditions and prejudiced teachings of the whole
Jewish Ecclesiastical Body of the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and
the High Priests. Also, the idea that the earth was flat and that sailors were
in danger of sailing off the edge of the world was a universal belief for
hundreds of years.
The
idea that "the majority must be right" or that "long held
tradition is proof of truth" is not a logical conclusion. And when
evidence is presented which shows that a long held view is in error, or that a
view held by the majority is in error, it should not be rejected by appealing
to the false logic that "a belief held by the majority for a long time is
proof of its truth."
12. The Jews believed in
the doctrine of original sin at the time of Jesus. They said to the man born
blind: "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and
dost thou teach us?" (John 9:34). This verse shows that the doctrine of
original sin is true.
Answer: This verse does not teach that there was a belief in
the doctrine of original sin at the time of Jesus, nor does it teach that the
religious leaders believed in original sin. If anything, it teaches the exact
opposite, because if the religious leaders had believed in original sin, they
would have been forced to say something like this: "Well, you have as much
right to teach us as we do to teach you, since we are all, altogether born in
sins." But they were not, in any way, including themselves
in this thing of being "altogether born in sins." They were excluding
themselves and limiting it only to the man born blind.
What
they really were saying was this: "You're a vile, despicable sinner, and
you presume to teach us? We are holy and righteous before God and will you who was altogether born in sins presume to teach us?" They
were not teaching the doctrine of original sin anymore than David taught it
when he said of himself, "Behold, I was shapen
in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." In fact, they meant to
say the same thing about the man born blind that David meant to say about
himself. David meant to say that he was a vile and despicable sinner and guilty
before God, and they meant to say the same thing about the man born blind. But
they, in no way, meant to include themselves with the man born blind and teach
that they also were "altogether born in sins."
The
above text no more teaches the doctrine of original sin than the question the
disciples asked Christ teaches it. "Master, who did sin,
this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Christ answered
their question with the words, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his
parents" (John 9:3).
Thirteen Reasons Why the Doctrine of
Original Sin is False
1. It makes sin a
misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
In fact, if the doctrine of original sin were true, sin would be a calamity rather than a crime. Could a sinful nature be the crime of him upon whom it is entailed without his knowledge or consent? If this doctrine were true, the sinner would be the most unfortunate creature in the universe. To blame him or call him criminal for his sins would be absurd, and to punish him for his sins would be a cruel injustice. He would not deserve punishment for his sins, but would rather deserve pity and compassion for the misfortune he had suff