THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN [1]
Written by Ron Hutchison

One of the major doctrines in the religious world today is the doctrine of original sin, or that human beings are born with a sinful nature. The Bible teaches in 1 Peter 4:11, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." Certainly, if we are going to teach anything in religion, it must be what the Bible teaches. We must speak as the oracles or word of God speaks.

I have been having an email discussion for several months now with a friend who believes this doctrine, and it has really encouraged me to restudy this subject to make sure that what I believe about it is what the Bible teaches. Thus, I wanted to set out what the Bible teaches about this doctrine and I pray that both you and I will be like the fair-minded Bereans and  search the scriptures daily to see whether the things taught in this lesson are true (Acts 17:11). We all need to desire to be right with God and if we find that what we have believed about a subject or what we have been taught all our life about a subject conflicts with the Bible, then we must have the attitude of being willing to change our belief to be in harmony with Bible teaching.

WHAT YOU BELIEVE WILL AFFECT YOUR ATTITUDE AND ACTIONS

Were you born with a sinful nature? The answer that you give to this question will affect your attitude toward sin and will ultimately affect your conduct as well, because a person's views on sin cannot help but affect his conduct. If one believes he is born with a sinful nature and sins because of that nature, he's not very likely to view his sins with the seriousness that he should. If he believes he has a nature that makes holiness impossible, he's not likely to be concerned about sinning against God. If he believes that God is his Creator and that he has been created with a sinful nature, this will necessarily affect his attitude toward God and the justice of God's dealings with man.

Are people born with a sinful nature? Our answer to this question is very important, because how we answer it will have a direct bearing on our attitude toward sin, toward God, and toward holy living.

"DOES THE BIBLE TEACH IT?"

One of the things that makes this doctrine believable to many people are passages in the Bible which seem to teach it. One of those passages is Psalm 51:5 which says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (NKJV). This verse settles it for most people. If the Bible says we were "brought forth in iniquity" and "conceived in sin," then that must mean that we were born with a sinful nature. Of course the New International Version (which is a very popular version in the religious world today) paraphrases this verse rather than translates it. It renders it, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

This text, if taken literally, might teach that people are born sinners. But the language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality demand a figurative interpretation of this text.

For example, compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21, which says: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other people are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other people will some day return to their mother's wombs.

Friend, we have to recognize that there is such a thing as figurative language in the Bible. Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative interpretation of these two texts.

David uses figurative language throughout the Psalms. In fact in Psalm 51, verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin because it says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean." Also, verse eight can be made to teach the doctrine that God breaks the righteous persons bones when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven because it says, "Make me hear joy and gladness, that the bones You have broken may rejoice." If verse 5 of Psalm 51 can be taken literally, then another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the doctrine that babies speak from the very moment they are born: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Who would seriously conclude that Psalm 58:3 is teaching that babies actually do speak as soon as they are born? No one in his right mind would, because both revelation and experience teach us that they do not. The fact is that none of these passages are meant to be understood in a literal sense. They are all figurative expressions. If they were understood literally, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality. Reality teaches us that bones do not rejoice, hyssop does not purge sin, babies do not speak as soon as they leave the womb, and an unborn child is not born with a sinful nature.

The same method of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies are born with a sinful nature, would, if applied to these passages, allow for every kind of perversion and wild interpretation of God's Word. Look again at the words of Job 1:21: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." Are we to take these word literally? Did Job mean to teach that he and all other people would some day go back and enter into their mother's wombs? We know that such a meaning would be ludicrous. But it is just as reasonable to interpret Job 1:21 to teach that Job and all other people will some day go back into their mother's wombs, as it is to interpret Psalm 51:5 to teach that David and all other people are born sinners. David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner. Instead he was confessing to God the terrible guilt and sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language, the language of figure and symbol, to express that terrible guilt and sinfulness.

If David intended to affirm that he was literally "brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin," and that means he was born a sinner, then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was his Maker:

DID GOD MAKE MAN A SINNER?

David affirmed, "Your hands have made me and fashioned me" (Psalm 119:73). He further wrote, "Know that the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;" (Psalm 100:3).  Are we to understand from these passages that God fashions people into sinners in their mother's wombs? Of course not. All of us know that God does not create sinners. Yet, upon the supposition that Psalm 51:5 teaches that men are born sinners, these texts could teach nothing else. Who cannot see that the doctrine that men are born sinners charges God with creating sinners? It represents man as being formed a sinner in his mother's womb, when the Bible clearly teaches that God forms man in his mother's womb. It represents man as coming into this world a sinner, when the Bible clearly teaches that God creates all men. You may object that God created only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited sinful nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under which he would be born with that nature? Was it not God? There is no escaping the logical inference in the doctrine of an inherited sinful nature. It is blasphemous and slanderous libel on the character of God.

But one might as well reject the Bible out of hand, if he does not want to recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Bible.

The last verse in this list not only declares that God has created man, but it also affirms that God created man upright. Now if man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; and if he is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictory.

But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature (I John 4:3, 2 John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38).

THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN
SLANDERS AND LIBELS THE CHARACTER OF GOD

The doctrine of original sin is false. It slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks our God-given consciousness of justice, and it contradicts the plainest teachings of God's Word. The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine, it is a false doctrine that contradicts the Bible on almost every page. But because good people can quote texts from the Bible that they believe "proves" the doctrine of original sin, they are convinced it is true. But good people have rejected truth and held to error in the name of the Bible before.

For instance, Galileo and Copernicus believed that the earth was not the center of the universe, that the sun did not go around the earth but that the earth went around the sun and that the earth rotated on its axis, giving the illusion that the sun was going around the earth. We all know this to be true today, but did all religious people believe it then? No, both John Calvin and Martin Luther held, along with the Roman Catholic Church, to the error that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth and that the earth stood still. Martin Luther called Copernicus "an upstart astrologer" and a "fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy." Calvin said: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?" Both Calvin and Luther may have been well-meaning men, but they still held to their false views because they could quote Scripture texts to support them. Likewise, there are good, well-meaning people today who also erroneously hold to the doctrine of original sin because they can quote texts from the Bible that they believe "proves" it.

It is these texts, which in my view, have been taken out of context and misinterpreted to support this doctrine, that we will examine in our second article.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ABOUT PSALM 51:5

We have already shown that the language in Psalm 51:5 is figurative language. The idea that men can be born sinners is illogical and unreasonable. It is both a physical and a moral impossibility to be born a sinner. It is a moral impossibility because people cannot justly be sinners by birth. That people can be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth is morally unthinkable.

It is a physical impossibility to be born a sinner because of the nature of sin. Sin is not a substance. It has no physical properties and cannot possibly be passed on physically from one person to another. We know this because the Bible defines sin. It defines it in 1 John 3:4 where John wrote by inspiration, "Sin is the transgression of the law" (KJV). According to the Bible, sin is an act or a choice that a human being makes to transgress the law of God. It cannot, therefore, be a substance because choice and substance are contradictions. Is a wicked act a substance? Is disobedience, transgressions, lawbreaking, or unrighteousness a substance? Is guilt a substance? No, they are all moral concepts or moral qualities. It is impossible for them to be transmitted physically. When we speak of sin, we are describing the character of an act. The word sin describes the character of an act as being wicked or wrong. Sin is no more a substance than friendliness, goodness, or virtue are substances. If sin is a substance that can be transmitted physically, then virtue also must be a substance that can be transmitted physically. What would be the result if all this were true? Wouldn't sinners beget sinners, and saints beget saints!

Sin is not a substance, and we all know that it is not. Yet religious leaders and others still maintain the impossible teaching that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Moral character, whether holiness or sinfulness, cannot be passed on physically. It is pure superstition to believe that it can be.

Then what did David mean by the expression, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."? He was using this figure of himself conceived and formed in his mother's womb as the embodiment of iniquity and sin to express, in strong symbolic language, his present sinful and guilty condition before God. This is David's Psalm of repentance. He is deeply humbled and penitent for the sins he has committed, and he uses this strong language to confess his wickedness and guilt. But if David wanted God to understand his language to mean that he was a sinner by birth, the whole spirit of the Psalm is contradicted and changed. It is no longer a Psalm of repentance of sin, but it is turned into a Psalm of excuse for sin. For what better excuse could David make for his sins than the excuse that he was born a sinner? But these are not the words of a man making excuses for his sins. These are the words of a man humbled and deeply penitent for having sinned against God.

To interpret this text literally violates two fundamental rules of sound Biblical interpretation:

First: a text must not be interpreted in such a way as to contradict the clear teachings of the Bible in other passages. The Bible is the word of God. It is without error or contradiction, and so it is only reasonable to realize that each passage maintains a unity, harmony, and agreement with every other passage. God is not the God of confusion and contradiction. There is unity and agreement throughout his Word. But we have already pointed out that a literal interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is completely inconsistent with its context, because it amounts to David making an excuse for his sins in a Psalm which is a confession of guilt for his sins. The whole character and spirit of the Psalm is contradicted and changed by giving verse five a literal meaning. A literal interpretation is also inconsistent with the figurative and symbolic language used throughout this Psalm. To arbitrarily give a literal meaning to this one verse, without giving a literal meaning to the other symbolic expressions in this Psalm shows an inconsistency in interpretation that can only be explained by a dogmatic belief in the doctrine of original sin. A literal interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is also inconsistent with numerous passages and teachings throughout the Bible. As we have pointed out, it makes God the Creator of sinners, because the Bible clearly teaches that God is our Creator, that he forms us in our mother's womb, and that he gives us life, breath, and all things. It directly contradicts the Scriptures that teach that God has created us upright and in his own image. And it makes Jesus a sinner, for the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus took upon himself human nature and became a man (Hebrews 2:11, 14, 16-18; 4:15).

Second: A text must not be interpreted in such a way as to contradict reality. We should forever remember that the Bible does not teach nonsense. It does not teach that God breaks our bones when we sin, or that broken bones literally rejoice (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that our sins are literally purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:7). It does not teach that babies literally speak and tell lies as soon as they are born (Psalm 58:3). It does not teach that men literally go back into their mother's wombs (Job 1:21). I does not teach that the substance of unborn babies is literally sinful (Psalm 51:5). These are all figurative expressions. To interpret them in their literal sense is to teach nonsense and what every person knows to be impossible and contrary to reality.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO BE BORN SINNERS

The nature of sin, the nature of justice, and the nature of God are such that it is impossible for men to be born sinners.

First, sin is voluntary. Is it a sin to be born with blue eyes, black hair, a small nose, or large ears? Is it a sin to be born short or tall? Is it a sin to be born at all? No, because we have no choice in the matter of our birth. Our birth, and everything we are and have at birth, is ours completely involuntarily.

Second, sin is not a substance. It has absolutely no material or physical properties. Sin is an act, and so it is impossible for it to be passed on physically.

Third, sin is a responsible choice. Newborn babies are not responsible. They do not know the difference between right and wrong, and so cannot be responsible. A child has no moral character at birth. Moral character can only belong to a child when he has come to know the difference between right and wrong. A child must first reach the "age of accountability" before he can sin. Isaiah wrote, "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). Deuteronomy 1:39 says, "Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." Friends, children do not know right from wrong at birth. They do not know to refuse the evil and choose the good. They have no knowledge of good and evil. Thus, they cannot be held responsible for sin.

Fourth, sin is personal and non-transferable. No person can sin for, or be made guilty of, the sin of another person. Moral character, guilt, and accountability are non-transferable. Ezekiel wrote in Ezekiel 18:20, :"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." Deuteronomy. 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."

GOD'S JUSTICE MAKES IT MORALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE BORN A SINNER

Is it possible that the infinitely just God could cause men to be born sinners and condemn them to hell for the sin of Adam? Can the perfect justice of God permit him to charge guilt to the innocent or punish the innocent for the guilt of another? Is it really possible that innocent little babies open their eyes in this world under the wrath of God and that they are condemned to the torments of hell for the sin of Adam? Such an idea goes against reason and revelation. Yet, this is the incredible teaching that people expect us to accept and to believe.

This doctrine represents God as the most cruel and unreasonable being in the universe. It represents him as condemning and sending men to hell for a nature which they received without their knowledge or consent, and with which He created them. According to this doctrine, millions of babies have been born into this world with a sinful nature; they are sinners necessarily because of the nature with which they were born, and then they have died and will be lost without a chance to be saved. What a blasphemous slander this doctrine is upon the character and justice of God!

CONCLUSION

Let me close this lesson with the words we opened it with from 1 Peter 4:11. "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." Does the Bible support what you believe about the doctrine of original sin? Will you not closely examine this doctrine in light of the teaching of the Bible? If you find after this examination that it does not teach what you believe, are you willing to change your belief to conform with the Bible's teaching? We cannot please God with any other attitude.

[Note: This article was originally presented as a sermon on radio station WRKY in Murray, Kentucky on January 19, 2003).