Why I Do Not Believe In Original Sin

Introduction
One of the key doctrines of Western Christianity is called "original sin," or sometimes "inherited sin." Basically this is the idea that when Adam and Eve rebelled against God, it made human nature sinful. But that's not all. According to the doctrine, everyone who descends from Adam and Eve, (that would be you and me) are born guilty of Adam's sin.

Disclaimer
I would like to begin with a disclaimer. Most arguments, particularly the Rabbinical arguments against original sin seek to undermine the need for Jesus to die in your place. The doctrine is called substitutionary atonement. I believe strongly in substitutionary atonement for the following reason: Justice is giving others what they deserve. Mercy is giving others better than they deserve. How can God have ultimate mercy and ultimate justice simultaneously? The cross. When we sin against God, he must exact punishment for those sins in order to avoid being unjust. A just God cannot let sin go unpunished, for that would be unjust. How then can we avoid the punishment due to us? By trusting in the sinless lamb, Jesus, to accept that punishment for our sins. We need not be born win a sin nature in order to require substitutionary atonement.

Calvinist theologians in particular, such as Wayne Grudem, argue that a plain reading of Scripture, and especially Paul's letter to the Romans, pretty much entails the doctrine of inherited sin. That is why both Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant theologians agree that we inherit Adam's sin. Both groups are full of hot air.

Arguments for Inherited Sin
The main argument for inherited sin comes from Romans 5:12-21.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus the Messiah abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus the Messiah.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus the Messiah our Lord.

(Romans 5:12-21 ESV)

Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it? Advocates for inherited sin argue that "all sinned" uses an aorist form of the verb, which usually indicates a completed action in the past. Clearly, at the time Paul was writing, not everyone had committed sinful actions. Many had not been born, and others had died in infancy.

The passage also says that many were made sinners. This is also an aorist form. Wayne Grudem argues that we were regarded as sinners even before we were born. Grudem reinforces this with Romans 5:8.

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us.
(Romans 5:8 ESV)

Many prooftexts for inherited sin come from the Tanakh. Examples include passages from the Psalms.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
(Psalm 51:5 ESV)

They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
(Psalm 14:3 ESV)

If David was sinful from his conception, it would seem to be a strong case for inherited guilt. If all are fallen and there is no one who does good, it would also seem to support original corruption.

But do any of these passages really imply inherited sin?

Answering These Arguments
Take the Tanakh passages. If the Tanakh was as filled with support for inherited sin as Grudem would believe, one would expect the Rabbis or at least the Karaite groups to have inherited guilt in their doctrines. But the truth is, inherited sin is just about completely absent from any form of Jewish theology, as well as Eastern Orthodox theology.

So the question is: do these groups have alternate interpretations of these questionable verses? The answer is: you bet.

Psalm 51 is a lament by David after his crime against Bathsheba. The psalm is filled with metaphorical language, such as "cleanse me with hyssop" and "let the bones that you have broken rejoice" and "the secret heart" and "open my lips" and "the sacrifices of God and "build up the walls of Jerusalem." This is a very bad passage to try to draw literal theological truths. David is basically saying "I am so horrible, that I was a murderer before I was born." This is called hyperbole, and the Psalms are filled with them.

According to Ibn Ezra, this verse is simply telling us that Eve did not have children until after she sinned. Jewish polemicists have also used this verse as a polemic against the incarnation of Jesus. They argued that if all creatures born of a woman are inflicted with the guilt of Adam, then Jesus, who was born of a woman as well, was also inflicted with inherited sin. More about this later.

Psalm 14 is easier to understand once you realize that "they" is not some unqualified universal, addressing all of humanity. Instead, this verse is only addressing the king and armies of Babylon. The last verse in the passage is calling God to restore שְׁב֣וּת עַמֹּ֑ו his captive people. The verse is about the Babylonian captivity. The verse: "There is no one who does good, not even one" refers to the fact that none of the soldiers did the right thing, which is to protest the wickedness of the Babylonian king.

Pelagius had a similar view on this verse. He said that this is referring to the fool. If no one does good, in what sense does David later on accuse those who devour his people and ruin the plan of the needy. For they were not God's people if they did not do good. And besides, they are called a righteous generation.

What about Romans 5? Both the word for "sinned" and "made sinners" are in the same aorist tense. The aorist tenses is this broad, general aspect, such as we see in Romans 3:23.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(Romans 3:23 ESV)

In all of these cases, Paul is making this general statement. The event is not punctiliar, that is, an event that occurs in a specific point in time. Romans 3:23 is clearly referring to people who commit past, present, and future sins. It is aorist, and yet is not referring to a completed action in the past.

What about those who die in infancy? Consider the following passages about salvation.

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

"but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins" (John 8:24)

"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4)

Was everyone in the Roman church buried with Jesus? Will those who die infancy, and who cannot repent perish as well? Those who die in infancy cannot form these kinds of theological beliefs. Will they die in their sins? If these “we” and “all” verses do not apply to those who die in infancy or to future people, then it seems rather inconsistent to demand this of Romans 5:8. Also regarding that verse, the context of Romans 5:8 is about the love of Jesus. He loved his people so much that he was willing to die for the wicked. The verse has nothing to do with whether or not the younger members of his congregation pre-existed their own conception so that they could have properties such as sinfulness during the crucifixion. That is simply to take the verse out of context.

Problems with Inherited Sin
Inherited sin is so problematic that it has become the subject of Jewish polemics during the middle ages. Deuteronomy 24:16 states:

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

They also draw support from Ezekiel 18.

The word of the LORD came to me: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.(Ezekiel 18:1-4 ESV)

The Bible condemns punishing children for the sins of their ancestors. We do not receive guilt or punishment for the sins of Adam. As a side note, this verse has nothing to do with substitutionary atonement, because Jesus volunteered to take our punishment. Ezekiel instead is refuting the idea that Israel is righteous, but that God is punishing the Israelites against their will because of the sins of their ancestors.

Inherited sin has philosophical problems, which he addressed in his book Responsibility and Atonement. Swinburne argues as a philosopher regarding what it means to have guilt. Agents (that would be us) acquire guilt when they do wrong. Objective guilt is a failure to fulfill moral obligations. Subjective guilt is when someone intentionally does wrong. Shame is regret for having done an action, regardless of the consequences of the action.

For example, breaking someone else's vase bring objective guilt, regardless of whether you intended to or not. Trying to break someone's vase brings on subjective guilt, regardless of whether you succeed or not. Regret for breaking someone's vase is shame, regardless of whether the act was right or wrong. Swinburne then gives examples.

To say that someone is morally guilty is not just to say that he has failed in the past. For if I fail in an obligation, I don’t just do a wrong, I do a wrong to someone. If I promise you that I will give a lecture and then don’t turn up, or if I kick you in a fit of anger, I have done a wrong to you. By hurting you, I put myself in a moral situation somewhat like the legal situation of a debtor who owes money. The wrong needs righting. There is an obligation to do something like repaying. But the morally guilty man is not merely one who has acquired certain obligations. He has also acquired a present status something like being unclean.

Swinburne then argues that we can acquire merit and guilt for the actions of others, but only when we have an obligation regarding their behavior. We only have an obligation regarding their behavior when we can influence it in some way. This is why parents can acquire guilt for the bad behavior of their children. But regarding Adam's sin, Swinburne concludes that we cannot possibly be guilty of the sinful act of Adam, who we could not have possibly influenced. The idea that later generations bear the guilt of earlier generations runs completely opposite of our notions of guilt and blame.

Ancestral Sin
John Romanides, a theologian of the Eastern Orthodox church, offers a different approach. He said that Paul affirmed that all of God's creation is good, but fallen. Not just man, but all of creation has been corrupted as a result of Adam's sin. All of creation longs for redemption.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:19-23 ESV)

The Bible affirms as well that Satan is the ruler of this world. When Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship, Jesus did not challenge that Satan lacked the authority to do this. Jesus knew this was a legitimate offer because the kingdoms of the world belong to him. Satan uses death and our fear of death in order to create an environment in which he can control us.

The Stanford Prison Experiement
This can be illustrated by the Stanford Prison Experiment. In this experiment, psychologists wanted to answer the quesiton: "just how much do our living conditions affect our behavior?" The experimenters selected randomly from a pool of candidates which individuals would play the role of “guard” and which would play the role of “prisoner.” The “guards” were free, but had to maintain the facility. The “inmates” were simply to cope with their environment.

The experiment had to be called off in six days due to the emotional condition of the “prisoners.” The researchers concluded that the prisoners and guards took on their roles with such force that they identified with them. The prisoners became very passive and depressed, while the guards became very controlling.

This is like the world in which we live. It is like a Stanford Prison but with Satan controlling the environment. Considering that these adults in the Stanford Prison experiment underwent such drastic change in only six days, imagine what a mastermind like Satan could do if he had that kind of power over an entire global civilization for thousands of years. That, I believe, is why we do not need an inherited corrupt nature in order to explain why we sin early and often.

Romans 5 Redux
Back to Romans 5. How do we answer the idea in Romans 5:12 that "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"? We look to the Greek. The term "because all sinned" is a bit of a mistranslation. Most Greek scholars have now accepted the traditional Eastern Orthodox translation of ἐφ' ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον: "on the basis of which all sinned." Death spread to all men on the basis of which all sinned. We do not die because we sin. We sin because we die. Satan uses human mortality and our survival instinct as a weapon against us. He knows our mortality gives us a tendency toward paranoia and to hoard rather than to share. And it is because of the resurrection of Jesus that we all have hope of being raised from the dead. This understanding that death is not the end, but only a temporary state until we are raised bodily, helps us to face our mortality with far greater courage. The sting of death is gone, thanks to resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15 Echoes Romans 5
Paul echoes this view in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” The context of the passage speaks only of physical death and physical resurrection. Spiritual death has no part in this chapter, and is not part of the context of this verse. Also, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” It is death that causes such overwhelming sin, and the law that reveals it.

Additional Benefits of the Doctrine of Ancestral Sin
Gregory of Nyssa said "That which God had not assumed, he had not redeemed." This was in regard to why God had to take on a human nature in the first place instead of just declaring humanity redeemed. This leads to the following argument:

1. If Jesus did not have the same human nature that we have, then he did not redeem the same human nature that we have.
2. If Jesus lacked the original sin that we (supposedly) possess, then he did not have the same human nature that we have.
3. Jesus did not have original sin.
Conclusion: If we possess original sin, Jesus did not redeem us.

Jesus seemed to have the same human nature we had. He felt pain and hunger, as well as sickness and even death. Since according to 1 Corinthians 15, the first human Adam was created immortal, but Jesus was born mortal, it appears that Jesus suffered the effects of Adam's fall. On what consistent basis can you believe that Jesus suffered the mortality of Adam's fall, but not the original sin of that fall? that seems arbitrary.

If humanity inherited original sin, then how did Jesus manage to descend from the line of King David without inheriting that original sin? You might think that the virgin birth solves it. But even the Calvinist theologian Millard Erickson acknowledges that it does not.

If [Jesus] had possessed both that which the mother contributes and what the father ordinarily contributes, he would have had a depraved and hence sinful nature, like the rest of us. But this argument seems to suggest that we too would be sinless if we did not have the male parent. And this in turn would mean one of two things: either (1) the father, not the mother, is the source of depravity, a notion that in effect implies that women do not have a depraved nature (or if they do, they do not transmit it), or (2) depravity comes not from the nature of our parents, but from the sexual act by which reproduction takes place. But there is nothing in Scripture to support the latter alternative

In other words, the virgin birth defense seems to imply that original sin is inherited either from the father or from the act of sex. There is no biblical support for either one of these views.

Finally, ancestral Sin deals with the problem of those who die in infancy. Can they go to heaven? The classic Roman Catholic doctrine states that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven, because baptism is needed to remove original sin. Pelagius found a major flaw with this view. He said that if baptism removes original sin, those who have been born to two baptized parents should not have this sin, as they could not have passed to their children what they themselves did not possess.

The doctrine of ancestral sin solves all of these problems.

Conclusion
Ancestral sin is a viable alternative to inherited sin. While advocates such as Wayne Grudem argue that an honest reading of Scripture in general and Romans 5 in particular entails belief in inherited sin, there are numerous viable alternatives. In fact, a literal reading of Romans 5:12 does not support Augustine’s view of inherited sin, but the Eastern Orthodox view of ancestral sin. All sinned on the basis of death. While the sin of Adam brought death into the world, it is the spreading of death to all which ensured that all sinned. One might object that infants had not actually sinned, but such an interpretation of “all” is simply too rigid. Forcing “all” to function as an unqualified universal unless specifically indicated otherwise would lead to contradictions in Scripture.

The Tanakh passages as well, despite being advanced as proof of inherited sin, have hardly convinced the Jewish groups of such a doctrine. Indeed, there are alternative interpretations of such verses. Psalm 51 may very well be hyperbolic, and not meant to be taken literally. Psalm 14 does not establish inherited guilt even if the “no one” is taken as an unqualified absolute. Even so, there are good reasons to believe that the wicked ones to which the psalm refers are the Babylonian conquerors and not the universal scope of humanity.


Philosophically, ancestral sin better fits the common sense interpretations of guilt in a way that inherited sin does not. Ancestral sin also makes sense of the amount of evil in this world. One need not posit a change in the moral status of human nature in order to explain why people sin early and often. Since psychological experiments have shown that human habits are highly subject to environmental conditioning, an environment controlled by Satan would lead to tremendous wickedness. Since Satan is the ruler of this world, it seems no surprise that the world is evil.

Ancestral sin also avoids the philosophical problems with inherited sin. Guilt is generally understood as a failure to follow a moral obligation. While people can be guilty for the actions of others, this is only when the guilty person could have otherwise influenced those actions. It is inconsistent with this notion to think that Adam’s descendants could bear any guilt, legal or otherwise, for the actions of Adam.

Objections to ancestral sin appear sparsely in the theological literature. Authors such as Henri Blocher seem to take as axiomatic the idea that because Adam’s sin led to death, the sins of all people led to the physical death of all people. This is far from obvious. Ancestral sin needs to be taken as a viable option in Protestant theological literature, since it appears consistent with Scripture and avoids the philosophical problems present in the doctrine of inherited guilt.

Also, Pelagius's commentary on Romans is now available online:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z0z1WvscKkkGr7nX-p5vj7DRYUSmhs4Csfm0aF_RsyY/edit?pli=1



The video discusses this article on Ancestral sin by John Romanides: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

J.P. Holding has a great video on the subject as well, and has a different take on the issue: