Original Sin is Unbiblical
Augustine was just making things up
The doctrine of original sin is one of the most damaging lies ever inflicted on the human race. Developed by Tertullian and popularized by Augustine, original sin says we all inherited Adam’s fallen nature.
There is no question that sinners have a sinful nature and that we all need to be saved from sin, but Augustine went further. He said we are born corrupt, and that we inherited a rebellious streak from our forefather Adam.
You were born spiritually dead and rebellious at heart. From the moment you drew your first breath, you were inclined towards sin, utterly depraved, and hostile towards God.
What is original sin?
This is how John Calvin (1509–1564) defined original sin:
Original sin may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh.
The key word is hereditary. The doctrine of original sin, as taught by Augustine, Calvin, et al., says you inherited a rebellious streak from your forefather Adam. Adam was a rebel which makes you a rebel. Before you were born, you were inclined to sin and disobey God. You were born bad to the bone and bound for hell.
“Men are born vicious,” said Calvin, as a result of the sin that Adam inflicted on upon his descendants.
The Lutherans agreed saying that all men, “from their mother’s womb, are full of evil desire and inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God.”
I disagree.
Like you, I grew up believing I was a natural born sinner inclined to rebel. It was obvious, wasn’t it? Just look at how I struggled with sin.
But around the time my children were born I began to question this teaching. “Is this little treasure really a hell-born brat?!”
After more than 15 years of studying this, I have come to the conviction that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is a manmade and thoroughly unbiblical teaching.
(If you’re interested in how I got here, check out my ebook entitled Original Sin: What Does the Bible Really Say? on Patreon.)
To clarify, the issue is not whether people are depraved, corrupt, and defiled, but whether we are born that way. Were we born corrupt or did we become corrupt? Did we enter the world sinning and rebelling against God, or did we go astray along the way?
Those who preach Augustine’s doctrine of original sin swing for the hereditary answer. Our sinful nature is essentially a sin gene, an inherited disposition towards sin, and we are all born with it.
Again, there is no question that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, and there is no doubt that Adam’s transgression had consequences that affect all of us (see Romans 5). My issue is with Augustine’s suggestion that after the Fall humanity was essentially remade or rewired to sin.
Scriptures used to support original sin include Gen. 5:3, 8:1, Ps. 51:5, 58:3, Jer. 17:9, Mark 7:23, Rom. 3:10–12, 5:12, 19, 7:18, and Eph. 2:1 and 3. I address these scriptures in my new book, but today I want to look at some other scriptures.
Scriptures refuting original sin
Original sin says you were shaped by sin in your mother’s womb. You were born defective and rebellious on account of Adam’s bad genes.
The Bible paints a different picture. Many wonderful scriptures show that you were handmade by God. Here’s a taste:
Your hands shaped me and made me. (Job 10:8).
You have been my God from my mother’s womb. (Ps. 22:10)
Your hands made me and formed me… (Ps. 119:73)
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb… (Is. 44:24)
God made you. He shaped you, fashioned you, and knitted you together, and he did a great job:
I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. (Ps. 139:14)
Augustinian tradition says you are defective and broken, but the Scriptures declare you are fearfully and wonderfully made.
You are a one of a kind special.
Where does the sin gene figure in this? It doesn’t. Adam’s sin affected the ground and everything that comes out of the ground, and this is why death is experienced in our physical bodies.
But your body is merely a home or earthsuit that you wear and which will one day be upgraded. The real you – your spirit and your mental faculties – comes from God (Job 32:8).
For you formed my inward parts. You wove me in my mother’s womb. (Ps. 139:13)
Your outward parts may be aging and broken, but your inward parts are first-rate because God doesn’t do shoddy work. You are not a mistake because God doesn’t make mistakes.
“If original sin is not true, why is the world such a mess?” This verse explains it:
Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. (Ecc. 7:29, NKJV)
God did a good job making humanity, but we ran after evil schemes and corrupted ourselves. We are not born corrupt but we become corrupted by the deceitful desires of the old self (Eph. 4:22), the pollutions of this world (2 Pet. 2:7, 20), and tradition and religion (1 Pet. 1:18–19). Behind all these sources of corruption we see the influence of the devil (see Eph. 2:1–2).
Original sin is one of those doctrines that sounds biblical but isn’t. It combines words and phrases from the Bible in ways that contradict the Bible.
The key differences between this manmade doctrine and what the scriptures actually say are summarized in the Table below (click on the pic for a bigger version).
Original sin has been around so long it’s hard to imagine an alternative, but the Bible has been around longer and the picture it paints is clear as day.
—–
Other articles on original sin:
- Old Testament scriptures used to support original sin
- New Testament scriptures used to support original sin
- The religious origins of original sin
- What is the true significance of the virgin birth?
- Are your children natural born sinners?
- What happens to unbaptized infants who die?
- Has original sin made you a bad parent?
- Six reasons why original sin cannot be true
Escape to Reality 
Romans 5 speaks of the difference between Adam and Jesus. How through one man’s disobedience death and condemnation went to all under him and how through another Man’s obedience life and justification went to all under Him. Under Adam we are not free of sin externally nor internally. Paul explains well in Romans 7 that the law only produced all sorts of sin from within. Showing that we are not born good by any means under Adam, we can only sin from the heart. Jesus was born without sin because He did not come from Adam but was sent by the Father from heaven and born of the Spirit in Mary’s womb. His humanity was a new creation in that He is the Last Adam.
If there is no “original sin” then why does John say; “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only (us that believe), but also for the sins of the whole world.” …
The Biblical answer is found in Romans 3:23, 5:12–9, 6:23, Gal. 3:22, 1 John 1:10, Is. 53:6, and many other places. Because of the transgression of one man, the whole world was condemned under sin and death. That’s it. You will note that none of these Biblical answers refers to anything that looks like Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. When you have Biblical explanations, you do need to invent extra-Biblical ones.
Paul, I’ve been looking for a place to throw this into the conversation. I’ve never heard anyone talk about the real reason Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and its implications for “original sin.” Genesis 3:22-24 make it clear that they had to removed from the garden so that they wouldn’t eat from the tree of life “and live forever.” I take that to mean live forever in their fallen state. They would be stuck like that.
The necessity of leaving paradise impacted their offspring (and all humans) because it meant that they would not grow up in a paradise, but in a fallen world. God had designed a paradise in which, I believe, children could have been raised sin free, but that opportunity was lost. Being born into a fallen world guarantees we will be sinners. This I believe is what Paul is talking about in Romans 5:18, when he says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men…” It’s not hereditary, or even imputed; it’s more like collateral damage.
It was not God’s plan, but was made necessary by Adam’s fall. God only had a good plan for humans, but after Adam, there was no way to continue down that path. We needed a new path of redemption.
Yes, that is exactly what I think Paul was saying. Adam and Eve inhabited a sinless world and walked with the Lord, but their offspring grew up in a fallen world of sinners ruled by Satan (John 12:31, 14:30). Big difference.
Original sin exists! Just not as was taught by Augustine. We are not guilty of the sins of others (Ezk 18:20). Not even Adams. We are each accountable for our own sins. While each baby is born sinless into a fallen and corrupt world, each and every person is tempted and eventually sins, and then over time, continued sin creates a pattern, a person’s OWN sin nature. So, each of us can trace back to our own original sin. We each have followed the path of Adam/Eve. we we’re all created sinless, then choose to sin and rebel. Seems it’s a common story 🙂
If you believe in original sin (as taught by Augustine, Calvin, et al.) and if you believe that God creates each human being, then you must also believe that God creates sinful people – that God creates evil, or at the very least puts evil in people. This contradicts not only scripture, but logic as well. It’s is a common fallacy of reformed theology. And those steeped in reformed theology struggle to believe anything different.
The important point is that we are each accountable for our own sins, not another persons. And we each developed our own sin natures. We didn’t inherit it. We only inherited the fallen world we are born into.
This assumed collective guilt thing has led to weird doctrines like infant baptism, sinless Mary, double predestination, inclusionism, and even universalism.
If there is no “original sin” then why does John say…
You are confusing Adam’s original sin with Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. They are different things. All those scriptures you mention pertain to Adam’s transgression. The whole world was condemned on account of his sin. No one is debating this. Original sin says something different (see article above).
…How are we corrupt? We are born that way, and need re-born, as sin is only a manifestation (results) of our true plight., “spirits (needing to be) made perfect”.
If we were born corrupt, why does the Bible say we become corrupt (Deu. 31:29, Ps. 14:3, Gal. 6:8, Jude 1:10)? If we are born lost, why does the Bible say we become lost (Ps. 119:67, 176, Is. 53:6, Hos. 4:12, Amos 2:4, 1 Tim. 6:21, 2 Tim. 2:18, 1 Pet. 2:25)? If we’re born bad, why does the Bible say we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps. 139:14)? If we’re stained by sin, why does the Bible say God made us (Ps. 139:13)?
As you can see, Augustine’s notions of inherited sin aren’t remotely scriptural. Far better to stick with what Paul says in Romans. We were born prisoners of sin, in captivity, on death row, and in need of a Savior. We need to be born again, but not because of some genetic defect. Those in Adam’s family are under the condemnation of sin and death; those in Christ are saved.
Well said Paul. The perspective you describe fits with what is Biblical far more than any notion of being born corrupt.
Thanks Zack for how you put your comment, it answered a question I asked in a recent post about righteousness and now I see with Holy Spirits help that before the fall even though Adam and Eve ended up rebelling against ABBA God they were in right relationship with Him until they rebelled and lost,forfeited their righteousness,glory by listening to and believing the devils lies that God is not good somehow because He was withholding things from them and thus Jesus came as the last Adam – thedifference was He was fully God,fully man to restore the righteousness and glory they had with God through His bloody sacrifice,payment for us at the cross and yes He His righteousness was more better than that that was lost because Jesus representing “ man”was not just a ( perfect) man He was perfectly God and came to “ give birth again to a new man, creation for,in us a righteousness returned again with,from
,God that is incorruptible,irreversible and unrepentant eternally from God as a free gift through Jesus a perfect man as,in us that is incorruptible and unpersuadableunmovable from any temptation to doubt ABBA God.
Yeah, Adam and Eve’s sin wasn’t disobedience. It was unbelief. They chose to believe the serpent over God, and that was their downfall.
Is not that the greatest sin though – our unbelief in not believing that ABBA God is completely good and thus completely good for and to us and that causes us to disobey ( is not our error of disobedience due to not believing Him not sin or is it classed as misunderstanding ))Him in a way as it causes us to mistrust Him and doubt His heart intentions and motives and desires and blessings to / for us His grace so we disobey Him due to our mistrust of Him/ His goodness by trying to get,obtain,aqquire things for ourselves in our own power,might,strengthworks,labour as we do not trust or believe and struggle with the truth that He is a good God ,has good things for us and even sacrificed His own Son for us to save us because we could not.? An honest question- not being sarcastic
Yes, that was my point. 🙂
Right, but Adams sin should be seen more as, “also unbelief”, as sure, sin is unbelief. Spurgeon wrote; “Virtues without faith are whitewashed sins. Obedience without faith, (if it is possible), is a gilded disobedience. Not to believe, nullifies everything…” He also wrote; “God hates it; God has dealt hard blows upon it: and God will ultimately crush it. Unbelief dishonors God. Every other crime touches God’s territory; but unbelief aims a blow at his divinity, impeaches his veracity, denies his goodness, blasphemes his attributes, maligns his character; therefore, God of all things, hates first and chiefly, unbelief, wherever it is.”
But still, after all that truth, the word say’s Adam’ sin was called, disobedience; “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,”. Romans 5:19.
You have to remember that is an English translation. The root wording of the original language refers to unbelief, and unbelief leads to disobedience as you already suggested.
Don’t know any translations that refers to disobedience as unbelief. The covenant of obedience was given to both by a command, and they broke that covenant.
Obey, and have eternal life, disobey and death and separation from God would come to them.
Disobedience is the evidence of unbelief, conversely, when a man obeys God, he gives the only possible evidence that he believes God.
One would not say someone unrelieved the contract, rather, it would be said, they disobeyed it, as Adam did in response to Gods command, Genesis 2:16,17.
Faith is of the heart, invisible to man, obedience is of the outward conduct, and maybe observed. Adam and Jesus were so related in this evidence based conduct, that Jesus was even called the last Adam, were in Romans 5:19 show’s; Adam’s “act” was act of disobedience eating the forbidden fruit, Christ’s “act” was act of obedience, dying on the cross. I like the saying; WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO US WAS WHEN ADAM “DISOBEYED”, ATE THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO (Romans 5:19). Likewise, THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO US WAS WHEN JESUS CHRIST “OBEYED”, DIED ON THE CROSS ABOUT 2000 YEARS AGO (Romans 5:19).
I didn’t say any translations refer to disobedience as unbelief. I said the root word of the original language refers to unbelief. Before Adam chose to disobey, he had to choose to believe the serpent over God. Unbelief is what triggered his disobedience. Conversely, Jesus belief or faith in his Father led to his obedience.
If the “root wording of the original language refers to unbelief,” then why does every translation refer this “root word” as disobedience? I am not trying to be argumentative, only trying to show as per scripture that Adam and Eve’s sin was disobedience, and was their downfall. Even James (James 1:14,15) shows us this progression; “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (deceived). Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.” This is were Adams disobedience comes into view of; “by one man’s offence death reigned by one” and “as (Adam’s) sin has reigned unto death” Romans 5:17,21. Adam was tempted, drawn away and enticed, but unbelief is not an act, disobeying Gods command was the very act that was revealed as sin and it was finished (brought to fruition) that very day, for in “that day you shall die”, Genesis 2:17.
Contrast the actions of Adam and Jesus. Adam’s action was one of disobedience. He and Eve disobeyed God’s direct and clear command to them. The result of that disobedience, was that many were made sinners. Jesus’s action, on the other hand, His death on the cross, was also an act, but of obedience ,which then ensured that many would be made righteous.
I do believe you aren’t trying to be argumentative. Same here. I just believe the distinction is important. Unbelief is what condemns us, and belief is what opens the door to confession of Jesus as Lord which brings salvation. Romans 5:19 doesn’t say that disobedience was the first sin. It simply says that one man’s disobedience is what caused us to be made sinners. Adam’s sin was birthed in unbelief which led to disobedience. In this verse, Strong’s concordance describes disobedience as imperfect hearing or inattention. This amounts to Adam ignoring or not listening to what God directed which stemmed from his unbelief. All sin is birthed in unbelief.
Still, it was your saying; “Adam and Eve’s sin wasn’t disobedience”, that got my attention and responding, for since (disobedience) was what Paul used to compare (on the other hand) to the obedience of Christ, would it also be true to say, Christ righteousness wasn’t obedience? No.
Adam’s sin was disobedience, and is explained in terms of deliberately choosing to disobey God’s plain and express command, causing many to be made sinners, yet in comparison, by the obedience of one (the second Adam), are many made righteous. This truth the apostle inculcates, and repeats it again and again, as a truth of very great consequence.
If Christ’s righteousness, is brought in by his obedience, then in comparison, Adams disobedience brought in sin. The disobedience of the first Adam ruined us, the obedience of the second Adam saves us. These were both “observable acts”, in response to God. Death entered in through disobedience, just as Life was brought to light through obedience.
Best I can do explaining it, . Thanks
Then I should clarify. Disobedience was not their first or “original” sin. The sin of unbelief is what led to their disobedience.
Unbelief is definitely the root of all sin. As we were created to live in total trust and dependence in God. So all acts that are done out of disbelief are acts of sin and disobedience towards God. As a man Jesus lived in perfect love and trust in the Father. But as a man He also lived in perfect communion with the Father without sin and therefore did not live by faith or hope in comparison to us because He lived in full realization of the things to come. He didn’t live blindly like we do, with the consequences of sin where we now only know things in part and can only see things in part until all things hoped for are finally realized. (1Corinthians 13:8-13, Hebrews 11:1) Jesus is the Author and Perfecter of our faith in that our faith starts in Him and He brings all things hoped for to perfect completion. We live currently saved by our faith in Him now but He will bring our salvation to completion in our Glorification to come. (Hebrews 12:2)
Hebrews 3:18-19 NCV says those who don’t obey is because of unbelief.
I agree. I’ve come to the conclusion that unbelief and pride go hand in hand. You can’t have unbelief without there being pride as well. Just like those who have faith must also have love because those who don’t love, don’t know Him. We go from a heart of unbelief and pride to a heart of faith and love in Christ.
Thanks that was the “ phrasing” I was looking for to help me -unbelief in “ man” ( led) leads to disobedience and thus “ rebellion” and why/what it does,cause I can relate grasp it. now more fully. Thus I can understand,appreciate more Romans 5:19 that through Jesus’ obedience many were made righteous as Jesus not sinful in any way being fully God/man always believed ABBA God and so always obeyed in all ways and could not be tempted,corrupted deceived at all by the devil and so was able to give us His “ intact” righteousness redeem our righteousness of ABBA God in Him in us that can never be corrupted,deceived,tempted by the devil again because we are not having to use,rely,depend on our righteousness that is “ faulty” unreliable,untrustworthy , we now have the Lords righteousness in us that is beyond doubt,fear,unbelief. This makes me feel so safe and secure understanding this more
All these comments have really helped me. I have done a lot of “ well everyone else seems to get almost straight away this amazing news/thing that ABBA God and Jesus has done for us I must act like I do too as I was too “ afraid and ashamed”to ask/ admit I did not “get it”.So unbelief/ disobedience are two sides of the same coin really. We are born due to the fall with the inability to not believe therefore we are in disobedience so we disobey as we do not believe/trust that God is good/for us which all is sin and so we start behaving more and more how the devil wants us to ( even though unaware)(because the unbelief spreads into all areas of our life to the point that we can’t believe/obey anymore about anything even if our life depended on it so that’s why Another had to come and save us and it had to be by His grace as try as we might even after we are “saved” we still can’t believe,obey perfectly we still need Someone perfect not of “fallen us” representing us,as us to do the believing and obeying for us before God so our “ inability”( obviously not in or born again spirits) is covered by grace and also we have overcome the devil and our “ falleness”( with Holy Spirits help ) to believe/ say yes to a need of a Saviour provided by God who has done what we could not do what God required us to do for us. And it’s also about getting our minds renewed from our new spirits with Holy Spirit to agree,believe the good news about God through Jesus.
WOW! Paul Ellis you are rocking my “world”! I have never even stopped to consider whether the doctrine of original sin was biblical or not.
As I read your book my brain hurts (in a good way) as renewal and transformation are in process.
Once again, your gift of shaking things up regarding traditional/religious thinking is encouraging me to desire/seek Jesus more and more.
Tell me: what’s the difference between being born a sinner and being born spiritually dead in a way that causes me to have a 100% chance of sinning no matter his much effort of faith I attempt to have? Worst of all, why is faith more important than love?
Sorry, I don’t understand your question. Can you rephrase it? It sounds like you’re saying why be born?
If we were born sinners, all else being equal, would anything actually be different? If I grew two batches of clones, one with original sin enough to make all their altruistic deeds as filthy rags in God’s eyes, and another left as a control group, what results would actually show in their behavior that would falsify original sin?
How are survival instincts and natural fearfulness that always leads to sin (and ensure that all have sinned) any different from original sin which ensures that all have sinned?
I love a good thought experiment. I think you are saying, if original sin isn’t true, and we are not born with a sinful gene, what difference does it make since all go astray anyway? I sort of answer that question in the graphic above.
Original sin affects the way we raise our children, the way we think of ourselves, and how we relate to our neighbors. If you hear every day that you are a hell-born sinner, it won’t be long before your behavior matches your (false) identity. But if you are raised believing that you are precious, a gift from God, but in need of a Savior, you’ll be primed and ready for the gospel.
So it’s the tone of the message? Then let me ask it this way: What’s the difference between: being born and created Dead to sin, Slaves of sin, locked in the Old Self, and having “free choice” (that by no compulsion but mere coincidence always and only leads one to sin at some point no matter what, to the degree of offense to great that God needs to burn you in hell forever) but it not being God’s fault in the slightest that you are created and born do, and are now obliged to seek the Christian salvation or else be tortured forever… and being born and created a sinner with extra steps?
Whoa – another long one! Maybe you should put this question to someone who believes God tortures people in hell forever.
Alright then, replace “torture them forever” with perhaps “lets them be tortured forever,” or even “lets them actually perish,” or “the second death” or whatever you might call the “result” or punishment for not-choosing-Christianity (or any label of “idolatry” or “dead religion” or “selfishness ” or whatever else Paul condemns the world of in Romans 2 to indirectly reference the unsaved or those obstinately (and/or made-to-be-obstinately if per Romans 9) bad people). I don’t care about labels. What is the substantial difference?
Both original sinners and what you assert are universally stained by sin, always end up guilty of sin, can’t avoid committing sin at some point, and need a savior to rescue them from its consequences, (and/or His “consequences”) for sin. Why should I care between being born a sinner and being born dead in sin? Is it simply to word it nicely to avoid the plain horror that the Good News needs to be good?
You have a strange way of expressing things. Whatever people choose is not punishment; it’s a choice. (There was a punishment for sin, but Jesus bore it all.) Those who desire Life shall have it, and those who reject it shall have what they choose too. In the end, everyone gets what they want, and if some choose differently from you, that’s not their punishment. That’s their choice. No one goes to hell or wherever on account of sin, for all sin was dealt with on the cross. If some are lost its because they willingly, with eyes wide open, walk away from the Lord of Life.
Why should you care whether OS is true or not? I answered that question in my earlier reply.
Your original response only answered half of my question. Whereas you wrote, “If you hear every day that you are a hell-born sinner, it won’t be long before your behavior matches your (false) identity.” This makes sense, but I could also hear every day (from your page on NT prooftexts) that I am “born a slave,” ‘born naturally excluded from the life of God’ and born “condemned to die”. That’s just as refreshing to hear as a child, don’t you think? It sounds like a technicality that only makes Original Sin a latent gene that will only metastatize a once you hit puberty or something. Further, How can all be born doomed to die in Adam if we were are not also born having sinned in Adam (Ezek 18:20)? Babies aren’t immortal, nor guilty of sinning in this life, but they still die all the time. So is it not a soul that sinneth?
There is a world of difference between being told you are wrong and God hates you and the world is wrong but God loves you.
Amen to that. Well said Paul.
There was a point in time where I had the “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” mindset because I believed I was inherently bad and couldn’t defeat sin. When I understood that Jesus had defeated sin on my behalf and loved me and that there was no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, it empowered me through his grace to overcome.
Jeremiah 31 verses 29 & 30 teach a different truth. That everyone will die in his own sin, not the sin of his father.
That doesn’t mean they are born with it. They can simply acquire it. However, I won’t die in my own sin. I have been set free by the blood of Jesus. Also, the verses you refer to are referring to accountability, not original sin. They simply mean that people won’t be accountable for the sins of their fathers. Each has to give an account for themselves. When my turn comes, it will be stamped PAID.
That which is paid is not forgiven. A debt that is paid cannot have been forgiven, and a debt forgiven is left unpaid. If it is paid, do not pretend that God forgives sin.
Not so! If you break something of mine, I can forgive you (meaning that you don’t have to pay to replace it). However, I still have replace it, so I pay. I think it may work this way: The sin has been paid for generally, but the application to you is God’s sovereign choice, i.e. forgiveness.
All that analogy does is remind us that Christianity’s model of sin is built on the premise that sin causes personal damages to God. This calls into question a lot of things about his nature and intentions in creating us capable of harm but incapable of blessing.
All analogies are limited. I don’t know that my sin does personal damage to God. I think the offense is that my sin damages others who are made in the image of God. If God is a just God he must act against me, the offender. The substitutionary sacrifice is the only way to be just and forgiving.
I would be more interested in your response to my assertion, rather than poking holes in the analogy. While the debt of the sin is paid for, the decision to forgive is still His choice.
Also, yes we are capable of offense, but why do you say that we are incapable of blessing? I’m not sure what you mean by that.
You tell me. You all decided that good deeds don’t atone for bad ones and put faith over love to make everyone need to believe the right things to qualify for salvation from God.
“We” didn’t decide anything on the subject.
Are you familiar with a “straw man argument”? The things you say we “say” are just simply not accurate. My responses aren’t really counterarguments; they are corrections of your misunderstandings.
As Brandon said, WE didn’t DECIDE anything. Do you think that good deeds can make up for good ones? If you kill someone, what are the good deeds that will cover it? Besides, it’s not a balance sheet anyway.
That’s because it’s not about deeds at all. Do you not know why sins are sins? It is because we have decided that what we want is more important than what God wants. Therefore, sin always separates you from God (at least without grace) because the very act of choosing to sin is choosing to move away from God.
Thus, your final assertion that one must believe the right things to qualify is also mistaken. John 17:3 says that eternal life IS knowing God. The salvation is in the relationship and does not require perfect theology. There is no litmus test. He wants a relationship with you. If you want a relationship with him, the way is open.
Very well said Allen.
No, it doesn’t do damage to God. It does damage to us and can impair our relationship with God if it goes unchecked. Our fellowship with him becomes damaged.
Agreed, there are plenty of Scriptures that suggest our sin was forgiven. Jesus took on our debt in our behalf, like a loan shark buying up debt, but then he canceled or forgave the debt against us.
No he doesn’t forgive it. He dangles it over your head and tells you to worship him lest he collect.
It is a crucial understanding of Christianity that there is no quid pro quo. Forgiveness is unconditional and worship is not a requirement for it. The Bible has many commands, but we should never add in an “or else” at the end of them. It’s not there. Should we worship God? Of course! He is worthy of it (which is what the word worship means). If something is great, you should say it is great. To say it isn’t, or impugn it, is wrong. To deny that He is worthy is to lie.
Wrong again.
From my understanding the doctrine of Original Sin explains how Death and Separation from God is the penalty and effect of Sin, specifically Adam’s sin being the cause….
You are right about Adam’s sin being the cause of original sin, but if you do not mention in your summary the words “hereditary” or “inherited” or “corrupt”, then you have not understood Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. Check out the John Calvin quote in the article above for a good summary.
It’s definitely hereditary because all people start off in life under Adam with a hardened heart towards God…
That’s Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity and it is no more Biblical than Augustine’s doctrine of original sin.
Total Depravity is biblical because scripture shows that it takes the renewing (born again) of God through the Spirit to get our hearts right. Man can’t do it alone through mere good guidance through the Law. Man is incapable by nature to uphold it because we are children of wrath under Adam.
Calvin didn’t say that, the apostle Paul did (in Romans and 1 Corinthians). The scriptures say we are all sinners who need to be born again but Calvin and Augustine go further than this. Total depravity, or Calvin’s conclusion that “men are born vicious,” stems directly from the Augustinian notion of hereditary sin. The logical conclusion of Augustine and Calvin’s thinking is that dead babies go straight to hell. This is just one of several reasons why OS and total depravity are bogus and unbiblical.
Paul – exactly what condition is Jesus Christ sent to die horribly on a cross and save us from if we have the capacity within our own selves to be good and uphold the law? All that just to set a good example for others, or to literally save us? I believe you watched your children being born and simply couldnt find it in yourself to see the thinly vieled sins that they do on a daily basis such as self centeredness, lying, etc. Which is something I can appreciate – but their sin is still there.
Hi Jim, I’m not sure why you think we have the capacity to be good and uphold the law. There is nothing in scripture to support that. All of us fall short and no one will be justified by the law (Rom. 3:20, 23). Jesus died to save us from sin and it’s fruit, namely death. More here.
I have asked elsewhere whether “children are natural born sinners.”
He isn’t suggesting that we have the capacity to be good and uphold the Law. He is saying that sinfulness is a learned behavior, and, we all learn it. Because of the corruption in the world, we are not capable of not learning it. That is why we need Jesus, to free us from the bondage of what we learned.
what about most of what Paul (bible Paul) says in the new testament like Ephesians 2:3 “Like the rest, we were by nature objects [children] of wrath.” Does that not explicitly state that by NATURE, we are by Default – by Birth of existence, objects of Gods wrath? – – – – you are claiming that we do NOT have to be born again in order to be saved. Because we are fine at the first birth pre-sin!
I answer your question in this article.
God himself said “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth;” How can you interpret this in any way other than original sin
I answer your question in this article.
Hey Paul, What’s helped me in my research on the origin of this theology (no pun intended),is found in the footnotes of Rom 5;12 from David Bentley Hart’s “The New Testament ” second edition. I had to read and reread it many times. Basically Augustine’s poor Latin translation spun him off on what has become the “Western Christian notion of original guilt”!
Blessings Brother
I have a question…
Good question, Terry, but it’s not relevant to this discussion thread. You might want to post it under one of my articles on marriage.
I still hold on to original sin, thus we are all born sinners, with sin nature, passed to us through man, Adama. if we the old man, is just a result of picking sin from a fallen world, it would not have required Jesus to die for us and for the whole world.
Im imagining this, God would have created a scenario like:- He would have modified or even regenerated a sinless corner somewhere, then grown a sinless child there and then that child when grown up, would upscale sinlessness from there.
Jesus had to die because sin was inborn, yes hereditary. That’s why when we are born again, we become a New Creation. the word born- again should tell us we get a different new nature altogether.
I don’t think you understand the difference between what the Bible says and what Augustine is saying. The Bible says we are ALL born sinners in Adam which is why we ALL need saving. We are ALL enslaved to sin and we ALL need to be set free. That is not in dispute. Where Augustine differs is that he reduces the problem to a sinful nature or a sinful gene. “You have a sinful nature, you need a new nature.” Which is like telling a terminally ill person they need a haircut. The real issue is much more serious than that. Those who are dead in sin need NEW LIFE. The table in the article outlines the differences. The second problem with Augustine’s doctrine, of course, is there is nothing in scripture to support it.
I just found this blog and your article. Thank you. Food for thought in a “meal” I’ve been chewing on for sometime regarding the issue. My advice to Christians is always keep learning, growing and thinking. “Never put down the fork”. Lol. Cheers
I think the Original Sin doctrine is actually made for a good purpose. But whoever made it, (at least to me), they didn’t think carefully enough. It is proposed: 1. Before the fall: able to sin, able not to sin; 2. After the fall: unable not to sin.
However, #1 causes trouble because it shows that there is a possibility that Adam and Eve never sinned. #1 can only be proposed if, for example, in the story: One of them never sins, while the other one sins. Eve eats the fruit. Eve offers the fruit to Adam. Adam doesn’t eat the fruit, ever. Eve is banished from Eden, while Adam stays in Eden forever. So, only from that kind of story can it be proposed: “You see, humans are able to sin but also able not to sin.” Yet, the story tells that both of them sinned, so the thing that can be proposed directly leads to #2: “You see, humans are unable not to sin.” Hoping the doctrine is for a good purpose, but it turns out to become an EVIL doctrine. It creates confusion, commotion, and questions asked here and there just because the one who made it didn’t think carefully.
To Karma:
Here is the way I have heard this explained by some theologians. BEFORE the FALL, man is ABLE to SIN, and ALSO ABLE TO NOT SIN. In other words, man was born innocent with the capacity to CHOOSE to sin or choose NOT to sin. AFTER the FALL, man is still ABLE TO SIN, but now he is UNABLE TO NOT SIN. Before the Fall, man was able to choose not to sin, BUT after the Fall, man can no longer refrain from sinning. That is the universality of human sin that Jesus came to rescue us.
When we are REBORN by God’s grace, we can STILL CHOOSE TO SIN, BUT now with the POWER of the Holy Spirit, we are ABLE TO NOT SIN! Believers are no longer under the bondage of sin, as we have been set free. Believers can still sin, BUT not live in a persistent lifestyle of sin as we are now a new creation with a new nature (1 John 3:9). The ability to NOT SIN is NOT removed until we get our glorified, resurrected bodies in heaven.