Original Sin

The question of original sin is a complex one.  The doctrine of original sin states that Adam sinned and we all inherited the guilt of his sin (or more precisely, we participated in the sin since we are all from Adam's seed and thus part of him) and are thus subject to damnation from the time of conception.

There are others who believe that one cannot sin if one does not know what sin is and that each person sins constantly (being incapable of not sinning), and so when that person reaches the "age of accountability" - the age at which he understands the consequences of sin and chooses to sin anyway - he or she will come under condemnation for their own sin, thus each person is only culpable for the sins they themselves commit.

Both positions are problematic and in this blog post I will attempt to point out the problems with each side and posit the solution which answers these problems to the best of my understanding.

The Baptist Faith and Message has the following to say: "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps this is the best synopsis of the position of those who oppose the notion of original sin.

There are a number of verses which support this position:

Ezekiel 18:20  The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Romans 2:5-7 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.  God will give to each person according to what he has done.  To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

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

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Jeremiah 31:29  "In those days people will no longer say,
    'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
    and the children's teeth are set on edge.'

Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.  

There are others, but you get the point.  The position is well supported by such verses.

On the other hand, there are also verses which support the notion of original sin:

 Psa 51:5  Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Rom 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Jesus] the many will be made righteous.

Again, there are others, but you get the idea.

So the question then becomes, Does the Bible contradict itself?  How can both be true?

Here we must apply one of the key principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (see my first blog post for a list of these principles).

Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones.  If a scripture can be interpreted in more than one way it should be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with other scripture on the same topic.

It is also useful to understand that the entire work (the entire Bible) should be considered when deciding how a scripture should be interpreted.  What is the theme of the entire Bible on the subject?  Where individual verses or passages seem to disagree with the theme of the entire Bible then those verses or passages are most likely being interpreted incorrectly.

So what is the theme of the entire Bible on the subject of original sin?  There are a couple of key verses which set the stage for answering this question.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This verse is explicit and cannot be interpreted in any other way.  The only way to reach heaven is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Adding to the theme are these verses:

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

 Joh 10:9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 

 Joh 10:27-30 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.  My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.

Act 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Clearly, the overwhelming theme of the scriptures is that salvation is through Christ alone.

Why is this so important to the doctrine of original sin?  If a person were not "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" as the Psalmist proclaims, and a newborn infant dies fresh from the womb (or even in utero) having committed no sin, then that infant would not need the saving grace of Christ Jesus in order to enter into heaven because that fetus would have been sinless at the time of its death.[1]  This is a huge problem for the person who does not believe in original sin because that infant or fetus has attained salvation from hell without the need for the saving grace of Jesus which directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus Himself when he says "no one comes to the father but by me" (John 14:6).

Another problem for those who reject the notion of original sin is: when is the age of accountability?  I have read many articles on the subject, most of which say there is no set time, it is the time when a person understands that he is a sinner and understands the consequences of sin.  This opens up another opportunity for someone to get to heaven without needing God's grace.  The person who understands that he is as sinner and needs a savior (and thus has reached the age of accountability) and dies before committing any sin.

Another of those principles of hermeneutics talks about the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture: “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”.  If it is important it will be clearly taught.

If there is such a thing as the age of accountability why isn't it well documented in scripture?  Why wouldn't something so important as this be well defined in scripture?  The logical answer is, it isn't taught because there is no such thing.

I think probably the biggest issue that most people have with original sin is they do not believe a righteous God would allow someone to be punished for someone else's sin (me being punished for Adam's sin).

Here we get back to one of those overriding themes of the Bible.  It was God's plan from the very beginning that humans have no way to deserve salvation.  He wants our utter dependance upon Him and total submission to his will.  If there were some way for us to attain salvation other than the death of His son (like never committing a sin) there there would be no need for His son to die because salvation could be obtained through works and not of grace.


This brings us back to those scriptures above supporting the notion that everyone is judged only for his own sin.

The New Testament verses quoted above are simply saying that a person is responsible for his own sin and will be judged according to what he has done both good and bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).  The verses do not preclude that we are also judged for the sins of our fathers (more on this later).  For Christians, that means rewards for good deeds done, and no punishment for the bad ones because Christ has borne the penalty for that sin already (this is the doctrine of justification).

The Old Testament verses noted above describing how the son will not be held accountable for the sins of the father are talking about sins committed by the father after the son is born.  If I am 40 and my father is 60 and my father commits a sin, I am not responsible for my father's sin.  This does not mean that I did not inherit the sins my father committed prior to my conception or the sins of his father and so on all the way back to Adam.



Now, if the doctrine of original sin is true, then that has some very significant ramifications which may not be apparent at first glance.

First, if man is subject to original sin and cannot attain salvation apart from willful acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, are all aborted fetuses, and those who die as infants and young children bound for eternal damnation?

Not according to the scriptures.  We are not given a specific doctrinal position in the Bible concerning this condition, but we are given a story describing this very thing which gives us our answer.

In 2 Samuel 12:13-21, we find the story of God's punishment of David for his sins in his affair with Bathsheba.  David lusted after Bathsheba and had her husband murdered so that he could marry her.  When that relationship produced a child, God's punishment for David was that his won would be taken from him.

David grieved for his son and would not eat for a week until his son died.  When his son died, David got up went to the house of the Lord and worshiped him, then he ordered some food and ate.

Vexed by this behavior his servants asked him why he grieved while the child was still alive, and stopped grieving when the child died.

It is David's response that gives us our answer.

2Samuel 12:22,23  He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.'  But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

David, being a "man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22) understood that the child would not be resurrected and come back to him, but that when David died, he would see the child again in heaven.  This verse gives us confidence that those with no capacity to make a conscious decision to accept Christ as personal savior are still saved through a special outpouring of grace from Jesus Christ.

Importantly, we don't need to understand the doctrinal nuances of the situation to understand that David expected to see his child again in heaven and that is enough.

As to the situation previously discussed where a person believes that Jesus is God, understands he is a sinner and dies before accepting Christ, I don't have an easy answer, but in situations like this I always recall the words of my friend Pat Marsh who said: "I don't know the answer, but I have a good and just God and I trust Him to do the right thing."

The second, and probably the most difficult, problem with the doctrine of original sin is: If all humans inherit sin from their parents then why wasn't Jesus subject to the punishment for original sin through his mother Mary?

That is a difficult question, indeed, and to find the answer we need to consider from whom we actually inherit our sin.  It is interesting that that the Bible says that the original sin was the sin of Adam.  In fact, it was Eve who first disobeyed God!

Also, why is it that God says he "punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 34:7)?[3]  What about the sins of the mothers?

Another good question is, why do the Jews only cite lineage through the father?  In the Old Testament we occasionally see a reference to the mother, but the long lists of genealogy (including the genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament) list only the fathers (in most instances).

I believe the reason comes back to the origin of the human soul.  Another very difficult question is, where does our soul come from?  There are three schools of thought.  I will not dig deeply into them, but will recount each here for convenience.

The first possibility is that each person's soul is a unique creation of God at conception.  Whereas this is a possibility, the Bible tells us that God completed his creative work on the sixth day and on the seventh day he rested.  If you read my blog posts on apologetics you will note that I believe in the day age origin interpretation.  In a nutshell, the word translated in most Bibles as "day" in Genesis is Yom and is the same word translated in other places as "era".  I believe that God created the entire universe is six eras and that we are currently living in that seventh era.  In this seventh era God is resting from his creative work until the after the second coming when the eighth era begins and it starts with a new creation - a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1).

Most of those who believe in the 24 hour day interpretation also believe that God is currently resting from his creative efforts.

If each soul is a unique creation then God did not rest much at all and He has been creating billions of souls ever since.

The second possibility is that God created all of the souls which would ever exist (on the sixth day it is presumed) and that each soul inhabits a new person at conception until such a time as all of the pre-created souls in heaven runs out, sometime after which Christ will come again since there will be no new souls to harvest.

This possibility would require some kind of soul repository in heaven which is never discussed in the Bible and would require one to believe something entirely made up of supposition which most Bible believers (including this one) are unwilling to do.  I consider this possibility to be more myth than doctrine.

The third possibility and the one which seems most plausible to me is the doctrine of traducianism which holds that one's soul comes from one's parents just like the physical body.  Traditional traducianism holds that just like each of us is physically a product of both our parents, so are we also, spiritually.

When all things are considered, this best explains how each person is subject to original sin.  We are both physically and spiritually a part of our parents [4].  To me, this is the only possibility which makes sense and fully harmonizes with scripture.

Now back to the original question, though, of why Jesus would not be subject to original sin through His mother.  My belief is not the traditional traducianism whereby a person inherits his soul from both parents, but rather, that a person inherits his soul from his father only.  If this is the case, then it makes perfect sense that original sin was perpetrated through Adam.  It also makes perfect sense that it is the sins of the father that are visited on the children.

Also, and most importantly, if this is the case, then Jesus was not subject to original sin because he had no earthly father (and is the only man other than Adam - the original sinner - who ever existed with no earthly father) and thus did not inherit any sin from His father.

If this understanding is correct, then it also becomes much easier to understand that Jesus was fully human and fully God.  He was fully physically human, and fully spiritually God.

When interpreted this way all of scripture is in perfect harmony.  Every person (other than Jesus) has sinned in that each one of us was once a part of our father and when our father sinned (prior to our conception) we also sinned.  That sin was then inherited through each generation of ancestry all the way back to Adam who committed the first sin which was inherited by his offspring (Eve, who also came from Adam, but was created from his rib before he sinned against God, was responsible only for her own sin).

Importantly, Adam and Eve offered sacrifices to God and taught their children (as evidenced by the story of Cain and Able) to do so as well.  Since the sacrificial system is symbolic of Christ's death for our sin, it is clear that even Adam and Eve understood and attained salvation through belief in the coming Messiah.

So, when Adam took that first bite of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he sinned and because we all are a part of him, we all sinned as well.  This idea of taking part in an ancestor's actions is well supported by scripture.

Hebrews 7:9,10 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

 This verse clearly supports the position that each of us lives in the body of our ancestors prior to conception.  If Levi participated in Abraham's tithes before he was conceived, so surely would he have participated in Abraham's sins.

The notion that my children inherited sin from me adds some extra poignancy to this Father's Day.  I think there is a reason why God made the husband and father the spiritual leader of the family [5].  If it is through the father that sin is passed to the children then how important is it that it be the father who ensures that his children are properly introduced to the God of the Bible through whom those sins are washed away?

Fathers, there is no greater responsibility under heaven than this - to be the strong spiritual leader for your family that God has commanded you to be.  There is nothing less than the immortal soul of your children (and perhaps your wife, if she is not already a believer) at stake.

---

[1] In reality, this is a problem for all children whom those rejecting the notion of original sin consider as younger than the age of accountability.  The difference in an infant and a small child being that an infant or fetus has committed no sin, whereas as soon as a child chooses to disobey a parent they have broken the fifth commandment and are guilty of sin, whether or not they are held accountable for it.
[2] Many see the unpardonable sin as “speaking against the Holy Spirit” (Matt 23:32), however, in the context where Jesus made this statement, the Pharisees had attributed the work of Jesus to his being a follower of Satan and Jesus is talking about the Pharisees rejecting Christ as God and attributing his miracles to Satan instead (since the miracles Jesus performed he did through the power of the Holy Spirit).  Thus the unpardonable sin is not simply “speaking against the Holy Spirit”, rather it is, rejecting the godhood of Jesus himself.  Since accepting Jesus as God and savior is core to the salvation experience, the unpardonable sin is that of rejecting Jesus as God and savior and thus rejecting the resulting indwelling of the Holy Spirit that comes to every believer.
[3] The new NIV (which is gender neutral) translates this verse as "the sins of the parents".  This may seem innocuous at first, but if my supposition in this document is true then that is a grievous misinterpretation.  Strong's Hebrew concordance translates the word 'awb' used here for father thusly:

awb
A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in “Abi-”

 The word clearly means 'father' and not parents.  For this reason, and many others, I do not consider the TNIV to be a valid translation.

[4]  The egg and sperm physically come together to firm a single cell which then begins to divide leading to a new human being, thus we are not simply made by them, we physically are them, half the mother and half the father.
[5] Ephesians 5:21-33 sets the husband as the "head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" giving him the responsibility to love her as himself and carrying with it the responsibility for the spiritual leadership of the family.  This is not a blog about marriage, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that I do not believe this means that the wife must do whatever the husband says.  It means that the husband is responsible for setting the proper example in all aspects of life, for expecting a high standard from his family in return, and for loving and protecting his family at all costs including that of his own life - just as Christ did for the church.  It does not mean that the wife is subservient to the husband, it means that the husband sets the kind of example that his wife can follow.  The onus is on the husband to provide that leadership and not the wife.  If the husband sets an example that is contrary to the will of God as clearly outlined in the Bible then it is the obligation of the wife to not submit to her husband.  It is the obligation of each of use to love God first, our spouse second, our children third, and ourselves somewhere after that.