Why Should I Believe in Original Sin?
By Trevin Wax on Sep 29, 2009 in Sin | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Here’s an email I recently received from a friend:
Trevin,
I have a question for you concerning some readings and discussions in class at my seminary.
Recently, we have discussed the topic of Original Sin in one of my classes. One of my professors doesn’t believe it to be biblical and is sharply critical of how it seems to condone thoughtless actions and attitudes towards others outside the church (although any theology can seem to condone wrong actions towards others. I believe it depends more on the people in this sense, although the theology has an effect). Many in the class disagree. I’ve been leaning away from Original Sin for a while, but I want some perspective on it outside of my seminary.
The view (and the one I lean towards) is that people are not inherently evil. We are all good, but a corrupted sort of good. We make mistakes, we drop the atom bomb, we create Hitler’s, but we aren’t evil, although there are some pretty radically terrible people out there.
This of course makes us wonder about Christ. Why did he die on the cross if we are already good (kinda)? In the readings we are discussing, I would say it points us toward the cross serving a different purpose than we might suppose in the theology of Original Sin…
The cross of Christ is a call and recovery. A call for us to die and live again as the imago Christi. A recovery of truer and more real humanity. Following Christ is a deepening of our humanity, the way God intended us to be in the garden.
My question is: What do you think about all this? I’m asking because I think you will give me a balanced perspective I can bring to my mind and to class discussion. What is your opinion of Original Sin? True, wrong, flawed? Do you have a different view altogether?
My Response
First off, let me affirm you in asking this question. When you say you want some perspective outside of your seminary, I am encouraged. (I’m encouraged when people at my seminary do the same.) It’s important to get perspective outside of one’s immediate circle. Even if you do wind up agreeing with your professor that the doctrine of original sin is unbiblical, at least you will have wrestled through it yourself and not just accepted the teaching outright.
That said, I disagree strongly with your professor on this subject and think that the denial of original sin causes more problems than it solves.
Scripture
The ultimate reason that I believe in the doctrine is because I believe the Scriptures teach it. Exegetically speaking, I don’t think you can properly interpret Romans 5 without seeing something like original sin. Paul does not explicitly explain how Adam’s sin and humanity’s sins are connected, but it is hard to understand Romans 5 without seeing that Paul is presupposing a link.
I admit that the doctrine we call “original sin” is a theological construct. No passage comes right out and says “Christians believe in original sin.” Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of original sin is constructed by putting together important passages that are best understood through the lens of original sin.
But the fact that we have this theological construct does not mean it’s unbiblical. Instead, the doctrine provides a synthesis that best explains what the Bible says.
I suppose you are familiar with the biblical passages that seem to support the traditional understanding. I won’t take the time to list them all. There are other good reasons to believe in original sin.
Church History
I believe church history got this one right, especially regarding the debates between Augustine and Pelagius. Church history is not infallible, but one should not dismiss quickly the teachings of the church through the centuries.
There are times the church has proven very fallible (think medieval Roman Catholicism, indulgences, infant baptism etc.). On this issue, however, the overall consensus of the church has been right. The Western Church speaks of original sin and total depravity as twin sides. (I understand that the Western explanation differs slightly from Eastern Orthodoxy, but both wings of the church agree at a substantive level that every single individual is a sinner and has a sin nature.)
Beautiful Truth
I believe that original sin is a beautiful truth. (Not that sin is beautiful, but that the doctrine – precisely because it is true – has beautiful facets that deserve consideration.) Upon first looking at it, it seems rather stark. We’re sinners. We are depraved. We are born with a corrupt nature. But I am encouraged by many aspects of this teaching.
1. “Original Sin” gives hope to losers
Let me quote from Alan Jacobs’ marvelous book, Original Sin: A Cultural History
“The Pelagian good news is that at every moment you are free to obey; the (unstated, hidden) bad news is that every moment you are equally free to sin, and at the instant of choice a lifetime of strict spiritual discipline will avail you nothing…”
“Pelagianism, like many zealous movements of moral and spiritual reform, writes a recipe for profound anxiety. Its original word of encouragement (“You can do it!”) immediately yields to the self-doubting question: ‘But am I doing it?’”
“By contrast, Augustine’s emphasis on the universal depravity of human nature – seen by so many then and now as an insult to human dignity – is curiously liberating. I once heard a preacher encourage his listeners to begin a prayer with the following words: ‘Lord, I am the failure that you always knew I would be.’ It is the true Augustinian note. Pelagianism is a creed for heroes, but Augustine’s emphasis on original sin and the consequent absolute dependence of every one of us on the grace of God gives hope to the waverer, the backslider, the slacker, the putz, the schlemiel. We’re all in the same boat as Mister Holier-than-Thou over there, saved only by the grace that comes to us in Holy Baptism…”
2. “Original Sin” puts us all on the same level before God.
During his preaching ministry, evangelist George Whitefield became friends with Selina, the Countess of Huntingdon. But his preaching on sin – precisely the truth that we are all affected by original sin – repulsed her. She wrote him:
“It is monstrous to be told you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. This is highly offensive and insulting; and I cannot but wonder that your ladyship should relish any sentiment so much at variance with high rank and good breeding.”
This kind of egalitarianism is what is so beautiful about original sin. The common people who heard Whitefield’s preaching wept at his teaching about sin. Why? Because Whitefield told them that, though they were sinners, God loved them. He called them to repentance, just as he calls everyone else to repentance, even the king and queen. The message of repentance is for all.
So, in the end, it’s not “original goodness” that makes us value other human beings, but “original sin”, because it levels us and puts us all on the same playing field. We’re all cut down to size, from the prince to the pauper, the rich to the poor, the educated to the illiterate.
3. “Original Sin” gives us tools to respect others.
Tim Keller makes a good point. The doctrine of original sin (together with the doctrine of the imago Dei) gives us the tools with which to respect people.
Because we believe that the image of God is in every human being, we know that they are better than their wrong beliefs. And because everyone is a sinner, we know that we Christians are worse than our right beliefs. People who are wrong about Jesus are not as bad as they could be. And we who are right about Jesus are not as good as we could be.
Original sin does not deny that we were created with the image of God. It only says that the image is tainted or shattered. Original sin does not deny the value of humanity.
4. “Original Sin” explains the need for Christ’s death
I agree that following Christ is a deepening of our humanity. We become more human as we grow in sanctification because Christ is the True Human – the greatest reflection of all God intends for humanity.
The problem with excising original sin from this picture is that it neutralizes the power of the cross. It makes the cross a call to new life, but not something that actually accomplishes anything. It’s a call to new life, rather than a gift of new life. The cross says, “Be better.”
For those who deny original sin, the cross is about making (kinda) good people better. In the traditional understanding, the cross is about making dead people live.
I need God to swoop in and change me and save me himself. I can’t save myself. I am so wicked. I know my heart. I know my thoughts. The last thing I need is a call. I need to be revived first and then set about to new tasks.
So I take great comfort in original sin. It rings true with the biblical witness and with my human experience.
We are rebellious sinners, but God loves us anyway. That’s a lot better than saying, “We aren’t really as bad as we think we are, and God does love us.” God’s love for me is greater and more impressive because I know how bad I am than by my making myself seem better.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
A bit off topic, but I couldn’t ignore it. Much of your reasoning seems to based around your comfort. Your comfort with the Church’s historical interpretation, your comfort with your own interpretation, your comfort with the conclusions you can come to by believing what you believe. Yes, it works out better to believe as you do, but how do you know it’s right? By the way, I agree with you on every point, but I’m searching for a foundation stronger than my personal interpretation and comfort. Any thoughts? Feel free to email me as well.
Jonathan | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
Jonathan,
Comfort is not my main reason for believing this truth. Like I said at first, I see this doctrine taught in the Scriptures. The reason it is comforting is because it’s true. I’m not making the case that it’s true because it’s comforting.
Trevin Wax | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
Excellent, Biblical response. Thanks for sharing.
Justin | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
I’ve never bought the “we’re all inherently good” argument. Look at a toddler’s first response when another toddler takes his toy away–they become aggressive, usually hitting the other child. That’s a built-in response; no (responsible) parent actively teaches Junior to do that, and most parents would chide the child for that behaviour, not encourage it.
C. Holland | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
I understand that it’s comforting because it’s true, but if you go back and look at what you said and how you said it you will see what I mean. The reason I bring this is up is become it was brought to my attention by someone I was sharing with. A lot of times we draw conclusions based around our comfort with something. “I like this church” or “I like this Bible translation.” When we start to make decisions based upon our comfort we start to create a religion we’re comfortable with rather than respond to one true standard.
Jonathan | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
I don’t know if I would agree with the professor, but the idea doesn’t seem like a Biblical doctrine to me.
Bible verses used to support the doctrine of Original sin fail as proof texts, simply not rising to the level of clarity necessary to be considered such. Proof texts, by definition, ought to be texts that prove something, that absolutely compel acknowledgement of, and require the assent to (the embracing of), the doctrine said to be contained within them.
The Bible verses most frequently quoted to prove the doctrine of original sin are Romans 5:19, Ephesians 2:1-3, and Psalms 58:2-3. Of these three, perhaps the most frequently cited text is Romans 5:19. Its value as a proof text might be suspect just by the fact that many people who reject the doctrine of original sin cite the very same text to prove their position. I’ll return to that later, but so much for the usefulness of Romans 5:19 as a proof text!
First, let’s look at Ephesians 2:1-3: “And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (KJV)
For centuries, commentators have not agreed over who is meant by “you” and “we” in this section of Scripture.
[The “we’s” and “you’s” in the Epistle to the Ephesians are divided into two groups by scholars, the ambiguous ones, and the unambiguous ones. Ephesians 2:1-3 is in one of the “ambiguous” sections. Also, I should note that some of the oldest and finest manuscripts do not have the words, “at Ephesus,” in Eph. 1:1, and many scholars feel that the Epistle was originally a general epistle, or one meant for churches in several cities. Thus there is even a little question about the unambiguous “you’s” of the epistle, thought to be the original receivers of the Epistle.]
In Eph. 2:1-3, many people maintain that Paul is speaking about Gentile Christians (“you”) and Jewish Christians (“we”).
But, throughout this text, one thing is absolutely clear. Paul is not speaking to infants, or about infants. From the opening words of verse 1, it could not be plainer that Paul is talking to people who had been experienced sinners. Consider the words, “And you [hath he quickened] who were dead in trespasses and sins.” [The words “hath he quickened” are not found in the Greek text.] Note that it is neither “trespass,” nor “sin.” It is “trespasses and sins.” Scholars take note of the plural and emphatic nature of the expression, “trespasses and sins.” This is not a reference to a sinful condition that Adam gave to them. These are their own trespasses and sins, and plenty of them. These people had been experienced sinners in their own right. This section is addressing neither Adam, nor babies.
Look at some other expressions in this text: “wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,” “among whom we all had our conversation in times past,” and “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” Again, these people had been experienced sinners, and had walked regularly with others of their kind. Again, there is no hint in these words of any thought of Adam, infants, or a sinful state at birth.
So, what are we left with that could possibly reflect on a natural sinful state of infants, or original sin? Some cite the words, “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” to make the case for original sin. But scholars have suggested several possible meanings for these words. One very plausible interpretation has them meaning, “and were the natural fruit of the wrathful world we were a part of (the world at enmity with God).” Though perhaps less plausible, it has also been suggested, from an examination of extra-Biblical writings, that the expression “the children of wrath” idiomatically meant “a joyless and unhappy people.” In that case the entire phrase would mean, “and were naturally (by way of sinful lives) a joyless and unhappy people.”
Considering that this is a passage of Scripture dealing with people who had been experienced and full-fledged adult sinners, and considering the vagueness and alternate meanings available for the phrase, “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” could anyone reasonably suggest that Ephesians 2:1-3 is a proof text for the doctrine of original sin, for babies being born as sinners on account of Adam? Could they still do that after contrasting the vagueness of the words, “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” with the clarity of other texts such as Ezekiel 18:19-20? The overall teaching of Scripture clearly favors the idea that we are held accountable for our own sins, and not the sins of others. [The exception to this is when we sin by leading others into sin. Then God does hold us responsible for the sins of others.]
Let’s move on to Psalm 58:2-3: “Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” (KJV)
A proof text? Should the doctrine of Original Sin hang on those two verses? Let’s look at the passage through verse 5.
First of all, verses 2 through 5 contain unmistakable poetic language in which David is describing the wicked. The very figurative language never mentions Adam, and newborns do not really speak lies from the moment they are born. The psalmist is using figurative language, in this case a form of hyperbole.
Second, look at the opening words of the following verse, verse 4: “Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.” Do you think that the sinners are literally venomous? That’s a use of simile.
Clearly, Psalms 58:2-5 is the language of poetry, and contains figures of speech. Doctrines are not proved from this kind of text.
Now let’s get back to what is probably the most commonly used “proof text” for the doctrine of original sin, Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (KJV)
Interestingly, the same text is used by Universalists to argue on behalf of universal salvation. That might be a ridiculous use of the verse, considering that the rest of the Epistle to the Romans doesn’t support the idea.
But there’s another use of the verse that is not ridiculous at all, especially considering the whole passage (verses 12-21, or even 1-21). It is the use some people make of Romans 5:19 to argue against the doctrine of original sin. Basically, they claim that the verse is saying that Christ has undone what was done by Adam. They say the verse is confirming that the judicial condemnation upon all mankind (Romans 5:12) was reversed by the obedience of Christ. Any sin, stain, guilt, or punishment owed that was present on account of the work of Adam has disappeared due to the work of Christ. Since the judicial condemnation has been undone, infants are born safe. If they wished, theologians could argue that the infants nevertheless depend upon the work of Christ for their safety. But the infants are born safe, in a state of innocence rather than a state of sin.
This view of Romans 5:19 isn’t unreasonable. It faces a challenge that I will discuss in the following two paragraphs, but the use of the verse as a proof text for original sin faces an even larger hurdle, namely the clear teaching of other parts of Scripture that a person is only responsible for his/her own sins (e.g., Ezekiel 18:19-20).
The only serious challenge to the use of Romans 5:19 to disprove original sin is that such a use seems to run counter to Scriptural texts suggesting that there is something besides just being born that is necessary for salvation, namely faith. See, e.g., John 3:36 and Hebrews 11:6.
However, those who use Romans 5:19 to argue against the doctrine of original sin have an answer to that objection. They say that faith is a normative requirement rather than an absolute one. In other words, faith is normally a requirement for salvation for people who reach an age at which they can sin, but not a requirement for young children (or infants) who have not yet been given the capability of faith. God is long-suffering and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Would God allow infants to perish because they were not able to believe? Since the seventeenth century the predominant answer theologians have given to that question is, “Of course not.” Such an outcome (the punishment or annihilation of infants) would make the work of Adam stronger in effect than the work of Christ. That is not the message Romans 5 is trying to convey!
Infants are pure, innocent, and safe, whether baptized or unbaptized.
Romans 5:19, Ephesians 2:1-3, and Psalms 58:2-3 clearly must be rejected as “proof texts” for the doctrine of original sin. Instead, the doctrine of original sin itself proves that the Church should have paid more attention to the message of the power of the work of Christ that Romans 5 was intended to convey.
George Desnoyers
George Desnoyers | Sep 29, 2009 | Reply
George:
I would encourage you to read Ephesians ch.1 and not stop as the chapter ends but read right into the “and you” of Ch.2 v 1 (leave out the commentator’s added ‘has he made alive…’it’s not necessary). The context of chapter two and the lostness of mankind is set against the fullness of Christ in you in chapter one. This fullness of Christ would have no contrast if there were not the fullness of original sin. Read the passage in context and I think you will change your opinion.
As to the ‘lostness’ of mankind in original sin, two comments may be helpful:
1. The very rebellion against it that I see in the lost, and even in the nature of the saved, seems to be a reflection of that very problem itself!
2. The ‘problem of evil’ is resolved in the doctrine of ‘original sin.’ It answers the issue of a fallen world, without laying the blame at God’s feet, as the lost so often do (of course they do, it is the evidence of their ‘lostness’).
3. To all of this there is a converse; that is, the ‘The Problem of Good.’ For, while man still carries repurcussions of the Fall in his original sin, he still carries the Breath of Life, breathed in by God Himself, and thus knows it is still right to do right. In this light I am puzzled by the way Christians are on the defense about the ‘Problem of Evil’ but not on the attack with ‘The Problem of Good’!
As to the fate of babies, I gladly leave that in the Lord’s hands, having just lost a grandson myself.
Blessings!
martin jones | Sep 30, 2009 | Reply
Martin,
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it and still do not see an argument for original sin there. But I am slow and often need to read a text and study it carefully over parts of several different days before seeing something. So I will continue to look at this for a while. Again, thanks.
George
George Desnoyers | Sep 30, 2009 | Reply
George,
A clarifying question for you: You wrote above that faith is only required for the salvation of those who are of an age that God can hold them accountable for their sin. Would you go on to say that someone can come to the age of accountability and never sin, therefore negating the need for faith/salvation at all? I think many would agree with your stance on the age of accountability; however, they would most likely say that God is not holding them accountable for their sin, not that they aren’t sinful which seems to be implied if one rejects original sin. Blessings, Justin
Justin S | Oct 2, 2009 | Reply
George Desnoyers here.
Justin wrote:
>George,
A clarifying question for you: You wrote above that
>faith is only required for the salvation of those
>who are of an age that God can hold them
>accountable for their sin. Would you go on to say
>that someone can come to the age of
>accountability and never sin, therefore negating
>the need for faith/salvation at all? I think many
>would agree with your stance on the age of
>accountability; however, they would most likely say
>that God is not holding them accountable for their
>sin, not that they aren’t sinful which seems to be
>implied if one rejects original sin. Blessings, Justin
George responds:
Justin,
Yes, you are right; very many people would say that they are sinful and that God is just not holding them accountable. But I don’t use that kind of language myself.
There are different ways of looking at that which are taken by different folks. It depends on the definition of “sin” you are using. If by “sin” you mean to include the notion of culpability (which I do), then it is possible for one to not have sinned though living for decades. After all, some people’s brains just never develop to the point at which a mental age (or ability) is acquired sufficient to make the person culpable. I consider such people to be already safe and not to require any means of salvation.
However, if by “sin” you are including mistakes to which culpability doesn’t attach, e.g. unintentionally telling someone in an emergency the wrong directions to a hospital, then I think you will have a lot more “sin” and therefore fewer cases of someone living several years without sinning. I don’t use this definition myself; it does have some support in the Bible in that there are places in which the Bible says one can sin accidentally. However, that is not the predominant usage.
And, in the most extreme case – but this is a position actually taken by some folks, you include as “sin” all acts done out of less than perfect motivation (perfect motivation being the love of God), then I would say you would have the smallest number of people who never sinned. Almost all acts committed by everyone would be sin, and, I suppose, call for some mechanism being necessary to restore people’s right relationship to God. Personally, I think the first two ideas of “sin” have some support, but I think this one doesn’t. I think this idea is mistaken and dangerous. I certainly would not want to raise my children to think that there is something wrong anytime an act is performed out of a motivation other than the love of God.
George
George Desnoyers | Oct 6, 2009 | Reply
The problem is your presupposition – man is “good.” This leads to wrong conclusions based on proof-texting. That’s the way it works.
Here is a summary of man’s basic-nature:
We were created “in God’s image,” according to the Bible, whatever that means. Lesson 2 (see the website for sources of lessons.) points out that we are like God mentally, in loving others, deserving respect, and in our capability of knowing him. In this way we are like God, created with these qualities and capable of being like this. We were created to have the moral qualities like those of God.
Of course, you will see in Lesson 3, the Bible story continues and shows that man became cynical and sinful. After man’s creation, man sinned against God. When man sinned, his behavior was not like God’s behavior, but his nature did not change. Man’s created nature remained the same as “God’s image.”
What is that nature? Well, God is smart. Man has a thinking brain too. God has feelings. So, men are made with feelings. Feelings are the result of our thinking. Most people realize that this is true. Men and women can think. How does that relate to “created in his image”? There have been libraries written on the subject “What is Man?” Some say he was “created good” and some say “evil.” That is to say, if he is by nature “good,” man will always do something good when left alone without guidance. We can observe this is not necessarily true. Well, try “created evil.” If man is by nature “evil,” then when left alone without instructions, he will always do something evil. That doesn’t work either. It is not necessarily true.
There is another state of “nature” that can be considered: “Neither good, nor evil, but neutral — free to choose.” Consider this to be what is meant by man’s nature.
Now, this begins to make sense. God is intelligent. Man has a brain, he is smart, and he can choose. If we conclude that man is created “neutral — free to choose,” it fits the Bible message that man is “created in the image of God.” He has the ability to choose. He is free to choose. Adam and Eve were given the freedom to choose between God and Satan. Man’s nature, when created, is neither “good” nor “evil,” but, neutral — free to choose. This agrees with scripture. God expects us to choose between His Kingdom and Satan’s Kingdom
By the way, we do choose and no one can keep us from choosing. If fact, you cannot NOT choose, for not to choose is to have chosen!
We are created free-to-choose. It’s our basic human nature. Created in God’s image means we are created neutral, free-to-choose. This is one way a human is like God.
“Human nature” does not say anything about man’s behavior — what he says or does. Man can choose to behave without regard for others (show disregard in his behavior); he can be cynical, unscrupulous, perverse, unintelligent, sick and ill. These are behaviors and not his basic human nature.
Everything in life fits the neutral, free-to-choose model. We choose and we pay the consequences of our choices. When we choose to follow the creator and his goodness, we reap goodness. When we choose not to follow God’s goodness, we reap trouble for ourselves and for those around us.
Scriptures:
Genesis 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Patterson | Oct 9, 2009 | Reply
I would like to weigh in if I may,
Even a simple reading of Romans chapters 1-3 leave us quite assuredly aware of our total disregard for God. That my friends is the definition of sin. All of us have it and all of us were born this way. This is evidenced by the fact that we all will die.
(I believe more in the idea of original death than original sin.)
Whether you believe in the transmission of sin from Adam down through all generations (be it seminally or federally)you cannot deny that all have the propensity to death which Paul argues has a link to sin.
We all sin. Romans 3:9 and 10 make that clear. In Romans 5 Paul tells us that in Christ we gain life by justification. Just my two cents.
Peter | Oct 9, 2009 | Reply
george I was wondering if I could have your email address? I would like to correspond with you, if you don’t mind, on this issue.
James W | Jan 5, 2010 | Reply
mines jazz642@gmail.com by the way
James W | Jan 6, 2010 | Reply