THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

In our last article, we began a study concerning the doctrine of original sin. One of the verses that the advocates of original sin rely on is Psalm 51:5. We studied this passage in it's context pointing out that it is not to be taken literally but is to be understood as figurative language. David 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 was deeply humbled and penitent for the sins he had committed, and he used this strong language to confess his wickedness and guilt.

We pointed out in our previous article that if David wanted God to understand his language to mean that he was saying that he was born with a sinful nature, then 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. 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.

ARE PEOPLE BORN WITH A SINFUL NATURE?

We pointed out in our first article that if you believe you were born with a sinful nature, that belief will influence your whole outlook on life and will ultimately affect your conduct as well. A person's views on sin cannot help but influence his conduct. If you believe you were born with a sinful nature and that you sin because of that nature, you are not very likely to view your sins with the seriousness that you should. If you believe you have a nature that makes holiness impossible, you are not likely to be concerned about sinning against God. If you believe that God is your Creator and that you have been created with a sinful nature, this has to affect your attitude toward God and the justice of God's dealings with mankind.

"PROOF TEXTS" EXAMINED

Ephesians 2:3 is often given as proof that man is born with a sinful nature. This passage says, "...among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." This text is supposed to teach that babies are born with a sinful nature and that they are under the wrath of God because of that nature. But it seems to me that it is a monstrous and a blasphemous doctrine to say that God is angry with any of his creation for possessing the nature with which he created them? Can God be angry with his creation for possessing the nature that he himself has given them? How could that be? God is not angry with men for possessing the nature he has given them, but only for the perversion of that nature. The Bible teaches that God is angry with people because of their evil deeds, and not for the nature with which they are born.

The word nature in this text has nothing at all to do with what man is by birth. The word nature refers to the sinful actions of the Ephesians before they were converted. The word nature can be used in two distinct senses. It may refer to what man is involuntarily because of his birth, or it may refer to what man is voluntarily, by choice and apart from birth. The Apostle Paul uses it in the latter sense in the text under consideration. The Ephesians were not children of wrath by birth. They were children of wrath because of voluntary wickedness. This is evident from the context of Ephesians 2:3. The context shows that Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did not have his eye on their birth at all when he used the word nature. On the contrary, he had his eye on the sinful conduct of the Ephesians before they were converted to Christianity. He calls attention in verses one and two to the fact that, before their conversion, they "were dead in trespasses and sins" and "walked according to the course of this world." In verse three, he calls attention to their former fellowship with other sinners in fulfilling the "lusts of the flesh" and "the desires of the flesh and of the mind." And then, summing up the wickedness and guilt of their former life, he says "and were by nature the children of wrath, just as the others." The word could have been translated by the word "CUSTOM"... or "habit of life" or "action" or "lifestyle" rather than by nature. To teach from this text that babies are born with a sinful nature, and that they come into this world under the wrath of God because of that nature, is teaching that which is not in harmony with the context and that which contradicts what the Bible teaches in other passages. Is God really ready to inflict his anger or wrath upon innocent little babies for the nature with which they are born and the nature which He Himself gave them? Ephesians 2 is simply pointing out the past sinful life of the Ephesians showing personal responsibility by saying things like verse 1 where the American Standard Version renders it, "when ye were dead through YOUR trespasses and sins." The use of the word "your" shows clearly that this is referring to personal sin. The fact that it says they "walked according to the course of this world" shows that what made them by nature children of wrath was their own personal sin, not Adam's sin. It was THEIR lusts of the flesh. It was THEIR desires of the flesh and of the mind. The very fact that Paul uses the phrase "of the mind" clearly shows that the sin they were being held responsible for originated in THEIR mind and from the desires of their flesh rather than from Adam's sin. It is all personal. The way they lived and the things they thought was what was responsible for their being by nature children of wrath.

When we look back in the beginning with Adam and Eve we see they had two natures, if you want to use that word; yet we know that they were not created with two natures. They had the nature they were created with, which was good and upright, and they also had what might be described as a sinful nature after they had sinned. It was this last nature, a voluntary nature, which made them "By nature the children of wrath." Men may have a nature in three distinct ways:

By birth. This is the good and upright nature with which we are all created.
By having sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This is a voluntary nature. It is the nature that makes us enemies of God, children of the devil, and "by nature the children of wrath."
By being born again (John 3:3). This is also a voluntary nature in which we, by faith and obedience, become "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4)

The word nature in the Bible, when it refers to our birth, never refers to a sinful nature. This is shown in Romans 2:14 and 15 which says: "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves; who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them..." It should be evident that the word nature, as used here, is not a sinful nature. How would a sinful nature ever cause us to "by nature do the things in the law"? A sinful nature would not cause us to do the things in the law, a sinful nature would only cause us to commit sin! (I would urge you also to study Romans 1:26, 27; I Corinthians 11:14; Romans 2:14, 15, which show that our nature teaches us the differences between right and wrong, but never causes us to do wrong.)

To maintain that we are born with a sinful nature is to charge God, the Author of our nature, with creating sinners. Men are not "born short of the glory of God." They "sin and fall short of the glory of God." Our Lord took on human nature. We know therefore that human nature is not sinful in itself.

Finally, that babies are not born with a sinful nature and are not "children of wrath" by birth is evident from what Jesus said of them in Luke 18:16. He said, "for of such is the kingdom of God". Now either the kingdom of God is made up of people with sinful natures, or people are not born with sinful natures.

My friends, the word nature in Ephesians 2:3 does not refer to a sinful nature that babies are born with, but rather the sinful lifestyle of the people under consideration who "once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," These people were "sons of disobedience," walking or living according to the course of this world. They made a conscious decision to walk in this way, as all who are sinners do. But just as they could make the conscious decision to walk in the wrong way - in disobedience - they could also make the conscious decision to walk in the right way, to obey Christ and thus be saved by God's grace and that's what the Ephesian brethren had done.. It is clear from the context of Ephesians 2:3 that "by nature children of wrath" means that before the Ephesian brethren had become Christians, they had conformed to the generally accepted ungodly and worldly standards of their day.

Romans 5:12-19. Let's read verses 12, 18 and 19 which are the verses the advocates of the doctrine of original sin rely on. Verse 12. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned;" Verses 18 and 19. "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." This passage is interpreted to mean that because Adam sinned, men are now born sinners. They become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by inheriting a sinful nature from Adam. But this passage does not teach the doctrine of original sin. It does not teach that men are born sinners. It does not teach that sin is transmitted physically or any other way from Adam to his descendants. It does not teach that the sin of Adam was imputed to his descendants. It does not teach that men have sinned "in Adam." On the contrary, Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of his descendants: Notice that this passages refers to "over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam." Those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam's transgression were certainly sinners, but their sin was different from the sin of Adam. They had sinned before the Law of Moses was given, and had evidently sinned against the law of their conscience or against moral law (which was a part of each dispensation of time), and not against a positive precept, as had Adam (Romans 5:13-14). And the fact that Paul says they "had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam" shows that Paul did not consider the sin of Adam to be their sin. It was those people who had personally sinned, not Adam! Now this is true, or what Paul says about them not sinning according to the likeness of Adam's transgression could not be true! Romans 5:12-19 does not in any way teach the doctrine of original sin. What does it teach? The Apostle makes a comparison between the evil power of sin being introduced into the world by Adam and the saving power now in Christ. Both are pictured according to their tendency rather than according to literal fact. Surely the power of grace in Christ does not actually come upon all men to save all, but it tends to that end, that's it's goal, and it is so described. In like manner the evil power in the sinning Adam is characterized according to its tendency.

To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came to all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for a person to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came to all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a dogmatic belief in the doctrine of original sin.

Paul does not affirm an involuntary, necessary, or irresistible connection between either the sin of Adam and mankind, or the righteousness of Christ and mankind. Otherwise, verse 18 would teach the universal salvation of mankind: "The free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life." We know that universal salvation is not taught in the Bible. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." He also wrote in Matthew 7:13, ""Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." It is clear from these passages that the Bible does not teach universal salvation. Yet, the Bible teaches that the free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life. Thus, we conclude that the free gift is made available to all, but all will not receive it. Men are not saved involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the obedience of Christ. Nor are they "made sinners" involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the transgression of Adam. But the context shows that men are "made sinners" in the same way that they are "made righteous," that is, voluntarily or willingly just as Paul said in verse 12. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." My friends, death passed upon all men, because all sinned. It was because of every person's personal sin that death passed upon "all men."

In verse 18, Paul compares the judgment that came upon all men because of Adam with the free gift of life that came upon all men because of Christ, and says "as" the one, "even so" the other. In verse 19, he compares the way the many were "made sinners" with the way the many were "made righteous," and says "as by" one, "so also by" the other. And in verse 21, he compares the reign of sin through Adam's transgression with the reign of grace through Christ's righteousness, and says "as" the one, "even so" the other. The context and language of this passage requires that we understand the connection between Adam's sin and the sins of the rest of mankind to be moral and voluntary instead of physical and involuntary.

Paul did not teach that men are "made righteous" involuntarily through Christ, nor did he teach that men are "made sinners" involuntarily through Adam. He did not teach that sin is a substance that dwells in the flesh. He did not teach that sin is inherited from Adam through "natural generation." He did not teach that we receive a sinful nature from Adam that is the "fountain and cause" of all our "actual" sins. He did not teach that men are born sinners or that sin is transmitted physically from Adam to his descendants. All of this has been the fabrication of man's imagination. Paul's whole message, and only message, in this passage is the message that the power of Adam's transgression in introducing sin, death, and condemnation into this world has been transcended by a much greater power - the glorious, liberating power of God's grace in Christ Jesus, which breaks the power of sin and brings justification, righteousness, and life to all who will receive it. (Romans 5:15-21).

THE NATURE OF JESUS WHILE IN THE FLESH

Now I want to discuss another point which I believe to be valid and needs to be considered when trying to determine if the doctrine of original sin is true. It is the nature of Jesus Christ in coming in the flesh as a physical descendant of Adam.

The Bible, in the genealogies in Luke 3 make clear that Jesus is the "son of Adam." That can mean nothing else but that Jesus, physically speaking, was a descendent of Adam. The Bible teaches in 1 John 4:3, "and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." In 2 John, verse 7, John further wrote, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." Now John affirms in both of these passages that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. He also affirms that the person who denies this is "a deceiver and an antichrist." From this language we understand that it is a very serious matter -- a matter of eternity and salvation -- to deny that Jesus came in the flesh. The genealogy of Christ in Luke 3 affirms that He is the son of Adam indicating his humanity. Jesus lived in a physical human body just as we do. He thus had to have had the same nature (as far as his humanity) as we do. In fact, Hebrew 2:14 says, "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," Here the Bible clearly states that Jesus took part of flesh and blood. That is, His spirit occupied a physical human body just as our spirits do. This is the only way that Jesus could experience death for us. It is the only way he could destroy the devil who had the power of death. Look at verse 17 of this chapter, "Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." It might be interesting to note that the New International Version, which is relied upon by many who believe in the doctrine of original sin, renders this verse like this: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." Now either Jesus was made like his brethren in "every way," or He wasn't. If He was, and his brothers were born with a sinful nature, then Jesus had to have been born with a sinful nature. Jesus would not have qualified to be a merciful and faithful high priest if He were any different (as far as his humanity goes) than His brothers. Now if Jesus was made like his brothers in "all things" or as the NIV says, "in every way," either one of two things must be true. Either men are born with a sinful nature and thus Jesus was born with a sinful nature, or Jesus was not born with a sinful nature which would mean that no human being has ever been born with a sinful nature. There are no other alternatives if we accept what the inspired Hebrew writer said in Hebrews 2:17.

Now the Bible clearly teaches, "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Now Jesus "knew no sin." If Jesus "knew no sin" that means He could not have been born with a sinful nature. However, He was made like his brothers in "every way!" Jesus never sinned even once. He faced the same kind of temptations that we face, yet He never sinned! The difference between Christ and us is that He never gave in to the temptation to sin. We do give in to the temptation. The difference is not that Christ was born without a sinful nature and we were born with a sinful nature. The difference is that we go against the nature we were created with. We give in to temptation and sin. Christ never gave in to the temptation to sin. That is the difference. The Hebrew writer said in Hebrews 4:15, "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." You see, Jesus was tempted like us. And there is no doubt in my mind that He could have given in to the temptations of Satan. If he could not, why would Satan have wasted his time tempting Christ. Yet, the difference is not a sinful nature versus a pure nature, but a choice made not to give in to temptation versus a choice which does give in to temptation. Because of our lusts we choose to give in to temptation and sin. Jesus, being fully human, also could be tempted. But He did not give in to the temptations! That's the difference. He made a fully conscious decision not to give in; we make a fully conscious decision to give in. Not because of a sinful nature, but because of our desire and a conscious choice to place our will above God's. That was why Adam and Eve gave in to the first temptation, and that's why we give in to temptation today. Jesus did not have the desire to place His will above the Father's. In fact, He said, "not My will, but Yours, be done." (Luke 22:42). But human beings do develop that desire and do often give in to the temptation to sin.

The very fact that Jesus partook of the same nature as His brothers. As every other human being. The fact that He never sinned and that this proves He did not possess a sinful nature, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that not one human being has ever been born into this world possessing a sinful nature!

Thus, the passages that are relied upon by the advocates of the doctrine of original sin must be understood in light of this fact. And when so understood, they are shown not to teach the doctrine of original sin at all.

[Note: This article was originally presented as a radio sermon on WRKY in Murray, Ky. on January 26th, 2005]

Return To Main Page