I don’t do this often, but here is a brief entry on Original Sin. I’m not brilliant like Phil Johnson or Mark Dever or any other doctrinal smart-guy for that matter, so let me know if I make mistakes.
1. Introduction
Not long ago I was walking on campus, making my way down bruin walk when I bumped into a tall, bald, caucasian man. He had waved as I was walking by and made a comment about my hat and my shirt being a nice combination of apparel. I was somewhat taken by surprise, so I paused. Having just gotten out of class, I was intending to run and get a quick lunch and go study in the library. However the moment this man stopped me I knew he wanted to share his Hindu faith with me. Afterall he was holding a book with the name “Dharma” on it. So I ended up staying where I was and spent the next hour or so speaking with him. The ensuing conversation was long-winded, and very sad.
At a certain point, we came to a crossroads in our dialog where he and I could go no further. I had spoken about the universal sinfulness of man and his fallen nature and he had disagreed adamantly towards such a doctrine, calling it unfair and unloving of God to make or allow man to be born in that way. So I appealed to the ultimate authority, Scripture. Yet even so, he would not agree or admit to such a doctrine. Finally, I asked him, well, if such a doctrine were in fact reality and you knew it to be true, would you follow after this God, this Jesus? The answer was an angry “No.”
It did not come as a surprise, you see, the doctrine of Original Sin is inherently offensive. It is a doctrine that humiliates man and appeals to a side of sovereignty that we do not like to attribute to a good and loving God. We cannot speak of Original Sin without stripping man bare of his own moral ability, his own capacity to do good. The main offense of the doctrine then is in its resulting condition in man: Total Depravity.
2. The Fall leading to Original Sin and Imputed Sin
In Adam’s sin there were two results, for himself and subsequently for the rest of mankind. When he ate from the tree and disobeyed the word of the Lord, (1) his innocence became corrupted. Simultaneously in the same act, he (2) acquired the status of guilt before God.
Sin was therefore introduced into his nature and legal guilt was credited to his soul. These two facets of Adam’s one sin are the same two facets of sin all mankind experiences today. Since we are all descended from a corrupt seed we are all natural born sinners. Furthermore, because Adam was the chosen representative of all mankind to follow, he brought the legal guilt of his one sin upon his entire posterity. These two facets are known as Original sin and Imputed sin and can be defined thusly:
Original sin: The inherited tendency towards sin. The inner corruption of man which he inherits by being descended from the seed of Adam who sinned. Calvin explained it this way, “All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God’s sight defiled and polluted.” This doctrine is often closely related if not equated to the doctrine of Total Depravity, or man’s absolute moral inability.
Imputed Sin: The inherited guilt of Adam. The legal, forensic standing of guilt, which is imputed or credited directly from Adam, mankind’s federal head, to every human being. This is a direct crediting and does not pass through the generations as an inheritance.
3. Experiential and Observational Support
Jonathan Edwards gives a powerful argument in The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended especially sections VIII and IX. But here is the outline of his argument as pertains to “Evidences of Original Sin from Facts and Events”.
- All men tend to sin and ruin
- Universal sin proves a sinful propensity
- This tendency most corrupt and pernicious
- All men sin immediately
- All have more sin than virtue
- Men’s proneness to extreme stupidity, &c
- Generality of mankind, wicked
- Great means used to oppose wickedness
I will not here develop this section. If you are interested, you can go check out Edward’s works on Original sin. I guarantee you will be astounded by its breadth.
4. Scriptural Support
There are numerous portions of Scripture that serve as proof-texts to the doctrine of Original Sin (or for all practical purposes, Total Depravity). Just to name a few:
“the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21, NAS95S) ““How then can a man be just with God? Or how can he be clean who is born of woman? “If even the moon has no brightness And the stars are not pure in His sight, How much less man, that maggot, And the son of man, that worm!””(Job 25:4-6, NAS95S) ““Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!”(Job 14:4, NAS95S) “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”(Psa. 51:5, NAS95S) “The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.”(Psa. 58:3, NAS95S) “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” (Psa. 58:1-3, ESV) “the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.” (Eccl. 9:3, NAS95S) “”The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9, NAS95S)
The text that I want to highlight is Ephesians 2:1-3.
“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” (Eph. 2:1-3, NAS95S)
The word for nature here is φυσις. nature: —instinctively(1), natural(1), natural*(1), nature(7), physically(1), race(m)(1), species(m)(1) It is a noun derived from the verb φυω, which means to bring forth, grow, spring up. The picture given is a seed, the core and the foundation of all natural development. We were by nature, children of wrath, that is, we were at the core of our existence, even at birth, sinful. Subsequently all developments of our being are tainted. You cannot get around this verse. The meaning is clear, we were by nature, by birth, by species, sinful.
5. Objections:
The main objection for Original sin is not so much the truthfulness of its claim as it is the fairness of the resultant moral inability it entails. Therefore we can say that the doctrine of Total depravity (i.e. Absolute Inability) is at the heart of this objection. The issue is inability. Does inability negate accountability? If we are unable to not sin how can we then be held accountable for our sins? Original sin states that man has an unfailing tendency, a natural and hence unstoppable bent to sin. He is born that way. Can this be fair?
(The following is by no means an exhaustive defense of the moral uprightness of God in the doctrine of Original Sin. )
Let’s begin in the Garden where the ball first started rolling.
Objection 1.a.
If mankind did not choose Adam, (who brought about Original Sin through the fall) how is it morally acceptable for him to represent man?
Defense 1: The unity we have with Adam can be seen as morally benign (or unaffected)
We had no choice when Adam was appointed as our representative in the garden. Many call that morally unfair. Yet likewise today, we have no choice when we are born in America and subsequently counted as U.S. citizens. The state of our existence in that sense is also determined without our choice. Yet why is it that we don’t complain? Nobody cries unmoral! Unjust! Why?
Firstly, because the specific state of our existence is beneficial to us. Often times people only raise concerns of moral fairness when the circumstance is attended with negative conditions. Nobody says anything when things are beneficial or even pleasurable. But this is all beside the point. We are not here speaking of the negative result of Adam’s representation, our focus is upon the morality of his position and appointment alone.
Secondly, because it is simply not a moral issue. You were born in the realm of U.S. sovereignty, therefore you are counted a citizen of the national entity. You were born into the financial status of your family and are thus forced to live under that status for the better portion of your childhood. You were born to your parents, and therefore inherited their physical characteristics. All of these circumstances were completely outside of your influence and affected the state of your existence. Are any of these issues of morality? Who’s to say if it’s right or wrong morally that I inherited my dad’s thick brow and square jaw? Who’s to say that it is morally wrong for me to be a U.S. Citizen? These are not issues of morality. Neither is the appointment of Adam a threat to the moral uprightness of God.
Defense 2: The Unity we have with Adam, who was the cause of our condition, is a wise and hopeful unity.
When you were a child, did you choose your political representative? No. Why? Because somebody decided that you didn’t have the smarts or even the mental capacity to elect a fitting representative for yourself. Politics was simply too complicated for you back then. Was that unfair? Was that unjust? Unmoral? No, I think not. Rather, it was wise and even loving for your parents to elect your political representative on your behalf.
Similarly, the Lord has chosen Adam to be our representative. And how much wiser is he than us? And how much more informed is he than us to make such a decision? And how much loftier and more complex is the issue of spiritual representation for the whole of mankind than mere politics?
Furthermore, in pondering the state of Adam, we can also see that he was a better man than any man to come after him, untainted by sinful tendencies, and more intelligent than any other human being to follow, his choice was by far better and more secure than ours could ever be. Adam was and is therefore man’s best bet back in the garden. To put it concisely, God knows we’re bumbling dolts, so he gave us a man of true and unrestrained brilliance to be our spokesman.
Objection 1.b.
If we cannot help but sin, doesn’t that nullify our choice? And hence our accountability for our sin?
Defense 1: Moral inability differs from Natural inability and hence does not negate accountability.
If I were to tell you to go and be a murderer, you would tell me “No, I cannot.” I would then ask you why? And you would answer, because “It’s against my character and my inner convictions”. This “cannot” is a type of “Moral Inability.” Because of your nature, you cannot do this or that, and yet simultaneously you are not without choice. When I asked you the question if you would go and be a murderer the option was open to you and you could have done it. However because of your nature you would not. If I asked you a thousand times under the same conditions, you would still not do it. You therefore had a moral inability.
Now, Man is born with a sinful nature; his tendency is to sin. Therefore when the question is asked “can you stop sinning?” the true answer of his heart will be “no. I cannot.” Do you see, Man indeed has a choice, and yet at the same time, his choice will always be the same. Therefore he is accountable to his sins even if he always by nature chooses to sin and is morally unable to do good (not sin).
6. Last thoughts
Well, I think that’s more than enough for a blog like mine. I hope it was helpful, and beyond that if the Lord should be so gracious, I hope it was edifying.
The question “why defend the doctrine?” Often rolls into my head when I write these sorts of things, and usually the answer that comes out is because I love the truth. I love thinking about it, and wrestling with it. It is a devotional experience to meditate on the Doctrines of Grace and put them on repeat in your head all day. Of course I also take into account the exhortation Paul gave to Timothy to guard what has been entrusted to him. I would like to do that too though I know that this is probably not the sort of guarding Paul was referring to, since it involves a certain amount of extra-biblical logic . Nonetheless going through these thoughts and reading through these scriptures has given my mind both exercise upon precious foundational truths and a better appreciation for the depths of God’s word. These were all great motivations for me even in the midst of writing.
But foremost is always worship.
