By Keith
Thompson
Introduction
Before demonstrating biblically that
original sin is part of the Christian faith God ordained, we need to define
what it means. Original sin is the teaching that because Adam, the federal head
who represented humanity, sinned in the garden, subsequent mankind is therefore
born inheriting his guilt as well as a sinful or corrupted nature. That is to
say, all men are now born guilty of Adam’s sin since Adam represented mankind
as man’s leader and we also inherit a fallen nature at birth. It is because
mankind has this fallen nature that needs to be replaced that the world is as
evil as it is. Mankind is fallen and naturally corrupt. Robert L. Reymond
summarizes the position:
“. . .God imputed to the race, as an implicate of the race’s representational solidarity with Adam, both Adam’s guilt and Adam’s corruption (that is, his disposition to sin). After all . . . Paul does not say that God imputed only Adam’s liability to punishment but rather that he imputed Adam’s sin itself to the race, which necessarily entails both guilt and corruption” (Robert L. Reymond, Paul: Missionary, Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 328).
Also relevant to note is the reason
men die is because of Adam’s sin in the garden (Romans 5:12-13, 15; 1 Corinthians 15:22). If that sin had not been
committed men would not die. So mankind also inherited death from Adam.
Original sin is affirmed by all Christians (e.g. Calvinists, Arminians or
fundamental Baptists, Lutherans, etc). However, it is denied by a heretical
sect which claims to be Christian known as Pelagians. There are a few Pelagian
heretics on the internet, namely youtube, deceiving people. Muslims or
Islamists who claim to believe our God but who deny the Bible, the crucifixion
of Christ, and the Trinity also deny the doctrine of original sin.
Biblical Evidence for Original Sin
The fall of man in Genesis chapter 3 speaks
to Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After this sin and
fall were are told in Genesis 5:3 that man is now in the image and likeness of Adam. It says, “When Adam had lived 130 years, he
fathered a son in his own likeness, after
his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3). Since
man is now in the image of Adam, he becomes a sharer in Adam’s guilt and
sinfulness. Commenting on Adam’s posterity being in his image, John Gill
remarked, “not in the likeness, and after the image of God, in which Adam was
created; for having sinned, he lost that image, at least it was greatly
defaced, and he came short of that glory of God, and could not convey it to his
posterity; who are, and ever have been conceived in sin, and shapen in
iniquity; are polluted and unclean, foolish and disobedient; averse to all that
is good, and prone to all that is evil” (John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Genesis 5:3). That man
inherits a sinful nature because of the fall of Adam we see one chapter later
in Genesis 6:5 that “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). After the fall man is presented
as so wicked that not only are all his thoughts evil, but even the time before his thoughts are. These are not
neutral people. These are radically depraved people in rebellion to God. It is
because Adam’s sin results in mankind receiving a sinful nature that in this
text we observe the universality of utter sinfulness in the earth. If Adam, as
federal head and leader of man, by his sin did not cause mankind to have an
inherited corrupted nature, why would all of humanity here be described in this catastrophically sinful way? Surely if
men are born neutral as Pelagians claim and did not have a fallen nature there
would at least be a couple hundred people who were not totally depraved on the
earth. That the opposite is true according to this text is evidence against
Pelagian falsehood. Two chapters later in Genesis 8:21 God says “the intention
of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Here God is not
speaking about some men, but “man.” Every man’s heart is evil since his youth.
How could this be if men are born neutral with no sinful nature inclining them
to be wicked? Surely many would choose to have a good heart if all men were
born neutral. The Hebrew word for “youth” here actually refers to infancy to
adulthood according to the best lexical material (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words, [Zondervan,
2006], p. 106; The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], p. 655)
and not thirteen to eighteen as our modern culture defines “youth.” Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon notes
that Genesis 46:34 is an example of the word carrying the meaning of
“childhood” as opposed to later “adolescence.” In the
context of all of mankind having a wicked heart in Genesis 8:21, it only makes
sense to say that has been man’s state from extreme
childhood, not just later adolescence. This is because if all of mankind
has a wicked heart except for children, then not all mankind has a wicked heart
as the text says and the verse becomes contradictory. Thus, Genesis 8:21 has to be referring to man’s heart being
evil from extreme childhood or extreme youth and not just later
adolescence. All of this universal sinfulness of mankind immediately following
the fall of Adam in Genesis 3 we have covered should persuade the one who submits to God’s word of the doctrine
or original sin. Now, Pelagians object to the idea that mankind inherits the
guilt and sinful nature of Adam. They say God would never do such a thing based
on reasoning from within. However, this is due to their ignorance of the Bible.
Scripture is very clear that God punishes people corporately because of their
leader’s or representative’s errors. For example, Robert Morey notes, “Pharaoh's
stubbornness led to God's judgment on the entire nation (Exo. 7-11). Those who
followed Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On suffered their fate (Num. 16). Each evil
king of Israel or Judah brought judgment on the entire nation. For example,
Israel had no rain because of the evil deeds of King Ahab (I Kings 17f)”
(Robert Morey, Original Sin, The
Atonement and Justification, www.faithdefenders.com). Therefore, the
Pelagian objection is unbiblical.
The book of Job’s testimony to original
sin is quite strong as well. In Job 14:4
it is asked, “Who can bring a clean
thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (Job 14:4). Similarly in Job 15:14
we read, “What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that
he can be righteous?” (Job 15:14). Lastly, in Job 25:4 it is asked, “How then
can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?”
(Job 25:4). The conclusion is because man is unclean it is not possible for the
offspring of man to be born pure. This is exactly what original sin says.
Because Adam was unclean his posterity was unclean. Likewise, everyone else is
unclean and so their children are as well. The conclusion is it is not possible
for a person to be born clean. The word for “clean” in Job 14:4 is ṭâhôr and it means “ethically pure” (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], p. 373). Therefore, since
that text affirms no one born is ethically pure, this refutes the Pelagians who
say men are born ethically pure or neutral but become defiled or
sinfully impure later in life. What is more, when Job 25:4 affirms that when
men are born they are not pure, the Hebrew for “pure” here is zâkâh and in this text it means “pure
in the sight of God” (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], p.
269). Thus, again, men are not born pure in the sight of God as Pelagians
claim.
In Mark 10:18 Jesus proves all
men are born with a sinful nature: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good
except God alone’” (Mark 10:18). Here Jesus is teaching people should not go
around calling people “good” if they do not know the person is God. That is,
this man didn’t know Jesus was God and so should not have called a man who
could have simply been ordinary “good.” When Jesus affirms no one is good
except God the word for “good” is agathos and here it
means, as Thayer’s Lexicon notes, “of
good constitution or nature” (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson
Publishers, 2009], p. 3). Thus, on the one hand Jesus teaches only God has a
good nature. But on the other-hand Pelagians teach all men are born with a good
nature and many men are genuinely good and sinless. Who should we believe,
Jesus or the Pelagians?
1 Corinthians 15:22 proves the teaching of Adamic guilt since there
we are told man is punished with death because of Adam’s sin: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made
alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). It is because mankind is guilty of Adam’s sin
that all men die (William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, [P&R Publishing, 2003], p. 558).
Romans 5 is explicit on original sin. Romans 5:18-19 teaches mankind is not
only born condemned or guilty because of Adam’s sin, but man is also born with
a sinful nature: “18Therefore, as one
trespass led to condemnation for all
men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all
men. 19For 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” (Romans 5:18-19). In regards to v. 18 some have
falsely claimed Adam’s sin leads to us sinning and by us sinning we condemn
ourselves. Others, like myself, however, take the position that although that
is in some sense also true, here it is saying we are condemned or guilty because
of Adam’s sin as well (Douglas J. Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1996], p. 342). The problem with the first view is nowhere does
Romans 5 say our personal sin is what condemns us (though, again, that is a
separate truth). We know the second view is the true since the meaning of v.
18’s mention of Jesus’ one act of righteousness leading to justification for
all men in Christ is Jesus’ sacrifice leads to men being justified without them
doing anything to earn it. Likewise, therefore, Adam’s sin led to all men being
condemned or guilty of his sin without mankind doing anything to earn that.
That is the meaning of v. 18. Moreover, Thomas Schreiner notes, “Verses 15-19 do
not ascribe death and condemnation to the individual sins of human beings
(though Paul would not deny such a thesis; cf. the exegesis and exposition of
1:18-3:20). Instead, death and condemnation are traced again and again to
Adam’s sin. All people die because of “the transgression of the one man” (v.
15). Condemnation was pronounced because of the one sin of Adam (v. 16). Death
reigned through the transgression of one man (v. 17). Condemnation was upon all
people because of the transgression of the one man (v. 18). All ‘became’
sinners because of the disobedience of the one man (v. 19)” (Thomas Schreiner, Romans, ed. Moises Silva, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, [Baker Academic, 1998], p. 288). In regards to v. 19’s mention
of Adam’s disobedience making “the many” sinners, we must interpret “the many”
here as referring to all mankind and
not some of mankind because of the
parallelism in v. 15 which says the “many” died through one man’s trespass
which obviously refers to all mankind. Plus v. 17 speaks of death reigning to
all mankind since Adam and v. 18 mentions “all men” being condemned because of
Adam’s trespass. Thus, the context and flow of the text shows “the many” in v.
19 who are made sinners refers to all humanity in Adam which is everyone. Now,
when v. 19 says “by the one man's
disobedience the many were made sinners,” the word for “made” is katestathēsan
and it means to appoint or consider
someone as something as a judgement because of their state (Thomas Schreiner, Romans,
ed. Moises Silva, Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 1998], p. 288;
Garlington, 1994:104; Moo, 1991: 358). This is evident from the vast majority
of the New Testament texts that use the word (Matthew 24:45, 47; 25:21, 23;
Luke 12:14; Acts 6:3; 7:10, 27, 35; Titus 1:5; Hebrews 5:1; 7:28; 8:3). Thus,
what we have is men are appointed or considered sinners due to their sinful
status they receive from Adam. Therefore, since this text teaches all men are appointed sinners due to
Adam’s sin, this sinful status of man must therefore be natural and universal
and not acquired later, i.e., man has a sinful status or a sinful nature
because of Adam’s sin which leads to him being appointed or considered as such.
This is the doctrine of original sin clearly seen in the text. Leon Morris
correctly concludes, “The verb were made.
. . . does not mean that sinless people were compelled to become sinners, but
rather that Adam’s sin constituted them as sinners. They were born as members
of a race already separated from God” (Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [W. B. Eerdmans, 1988], p.
240). Finally, it is important to address a Pelagian objection at this point.
They claim if Christians say vv. 18-19 mean all men without exception are
condemned and constituted sinners because of Adam’s sin, then that must mean
all men without exception are justified and made righteous as well because of
Christ’s obedience and thus universalism must be true, that is, the belief that
everyone will be saved. However, this argument fails to realize Paul can use
the flexible words “all” and “many” in different ways in the context of
parallel structure text contrasting Adam’s and Christ’s works as
representatives. The reason Paul can speak of all men being condemned and made
sinners because of Adam’s sin as well as all men being justified and made
righteous because of Christ without universalism being true is because of three
reasons: 1) Verse 17 shows righteousness from Christ is not universal but
belongs to those “who receive the
abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17).” Scholars
note the substantive participle “those who receive” in v. 17 means not all are
in Christ but only those who accept or receive Him. 2) By stressing the
universality of Christ’s work saying “all men” will be justified and made
righteous Paul is actually showing Christ’s work affects both Jews and
Gentiles, not all people without exception (Thomas
Schreiner, Romans, ed. Moises Silva, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, [Baker Academic, 1998], p. 292). And 3) the word “all” in
“all men” in v. 18 does not always mean “all without exception” (see Romans
8:32; 11:32; 16:19). Hence, according to the context it refers to all who are in Christ and who receive the abundance
of grace being justified and made righteous. Therefore, based all the
considerations raised so far, what we have in vv. 18-19 is all men in Adam
(which refers to everyone) being condemned and made sinners because of his one
sin, and all men or the many (which, due to the elasticity of those words,
refers to all Jews and Gentiles in Christ who receive the abundance of grace)
being justified and made righteous because of Christ’s work. As Robert H. Mounce
rightly concludes, “Context indicates that Paul was comparing the fate of those
who are in Adam (the position of all by
virtue of their birth into the human race) and the blessing of those who are in
Christ (the position of all who have
responded in faith)” (Robert H. Mounce, Romans,
ed. E. Ray Clendenen, The New American
Commentary, B&H Publishing Group, 1995], pp. 144-145).
Jeremiah 17:9 says that “The heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). In the
Old Testament the heart was the inner being of man which included brought forth
action, will and reason (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, [Zondervan, 1986], p.
486). All of these things in every man are deceitful or deceptive according to
this text. The word for “sick” in the Hebrew means “beyond cure” or “incurable”
(The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon,
[Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], p. 60). Man’s heart is so bad Jeremiah
felt it was beyond repair. How could all men be described as having this evil
of a heart if men are born neutral and many decide not to be wicked as
Pelagians claim?
In Ephesians 2:1-3 Paul affirms
man is born sinful: “1And you were dead in the
trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this
world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at
work in the sons of disobedience—3among whom we all once lived in the passions
of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by
nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:1-3). Here we
see every Christian before their salvation was extremely wicked following the
course of the world just as the rest of unsaved humanity currently does (v.
3b). Being this wicked makes mankind “children of wrath” (v. 3b). We are told
before salvation Christians were “by nature” children of wrath just like
unsaved mankind now is. The word for “by nature” is physei and as Frank Thielman notes, “. . .the dative singular of
the word, the form Paul uses here, often meant ‘by birth’” (Frank Thielman, Ephesians, eds. Robert Yarborough,
Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 2010], p. 127). Thus men
are by birth children of wrath or as wicked as Paul described. Thielman then
offers biblical and extrabiblical examples showing this is the meaning of the
Greek word: “See e. g. Gal. 2:15 (. . .Jews by birth); Sophocles, Oed. col.
1295 (. . .younger by birth); Aj. 1301 (. . . a queen by birth); and Herodotus,
Hist. 7.134.2 (. . .noble by birth)” (Frank Thielman, Ephesians, eds. Robert Yarborough, Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, [Baker Academic, 2010], p. 127 n. 29). Thielman then concludes
based on the evidence: “Paul uses the term here, therefore, to emphasize that
although unbelieving human beings are culpable for their sinful cravings,
desires, and thoughts (vv. 1-3a), they have chosen this path inevitably, in agreement
with the state into which they were born (cf. Rom. 5:12; 2 Esd. [4 Esra]
7:62-69, 116-18)” (Frank Thielman, Ephesians,
eds. Robert Yarborough, Robert H. Stein, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Academic, 2010], p.
127). It must also be pointed out how all men could be described in this sinful
way by Paul if all men are born neutral leading to many allegedly choosing to
live good as Pelagians claim. Paul’s theology is utterly contrary to
Pelagianism.
The universality of sinfulness and unregenerate
man’s inability to do good as taught in Scripture is a clear witness
against the notion that man is born neutral leading to many choosing to
allegedly live morally. In referring to all mankind (Romans 3:9), Paul says
“None is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). Paul is speaking about all men
apart from Christ and justifying grace as God see’s them. None of them are
naturally righteous. If Pelagianism is true and men are born neutral how could
this be? There should at least have been a couple thousand in history who were
naturally righteous. The fact that not even one person is righteous naturally
proves there is something seriously wrong with the human nature. As Jonathan Edwards pondered, “. . .why should man be so
continually spoken of as evil, carnal, perverse, deceitful, and desperately
wicked, if all men are by nature as perfectly innocent, and free from any
propensity to evil?” (Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin,
188). Paul also refutes the illogic of Pelagianism when he affirms “for all
have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This text
proves Pelagians are wrong in the logic of their system which says it is
possible for men to be righteous because they do not have a fallen nature. The same
can be argued based on 1 Kings 8:46 where Solomon said, “there is no one
who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46). Lastly, Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, “Surely there
is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes
7:20). See also Psalms 130:3; Luke 11:13; 1 John 1:8, 10. The evidence
unregenerate men do not have the natural ability to do true good or what is pleasing to God is strong. 1 Corinthians
12:3 affirms men can not say “Jesus is Lord” naturally except by the Holy
Spirit. On this connection John 15:4-5 says, “4As the branch cannot bear fruit
by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in
me. 5 . . .apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5). Romans 8:7-8
likewise says the mind set on the flesh (which is everyone according to
Ephesians 2:1-3 and Romans 3:9-18) cannot please God or submit to His Law. John
6:44 says men can’t come to Christ unless the Father draws them. Because men
can not do natural good this refutes sinless perfectionism as a possibility as
well as the idea that men are born neutral with natural ability.
Man’s natural universal blindness and hatred toward God are explained by the fact that mankind is born with a
corrupt nature. For example, many texts speak of natural man as being blind to
God, truth, understanding and Scripture’s meaning (Isaiah 42:7; Luke 4:18; 1
Corinthians 2:14; Revelation 3:17). That natural men hate God is evident from
Romans 8:7 which says “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God”
(Romans 8:7). Also Colossians 1:21 describes the unsaved world as “alienated
and hostile in mind [to God]” (Colossians 1:21). Men inheriting a sinful nature
explains this.
The need to be born again presupposes
our first births were defective. There are various texts which speak of the
necessity of being born again, re-born or born of God (John 1:13; 3:3-8; 1
Peter 1:3, 23; 1 John 5:1). Because Scripture insists that men must be born
again, what is seen is that there was something wrong with our first birth as
it relates to our spiritual state. The doctrinal of original sin explains this
by affirming at our first birth we inherited a corrupt nature and must
therefore undergo a new birth receiving a new nature (1 Peter 1:4).
Three Dangers Resulting from a Rejection of Original Sin
The first danger accompanying the
denial of the doctrine of original sin is those who do so often rely on their
emotions or what they think is true when coming to doctrinal conclusions. For
example, many Pelagians say something like “my God would not punish mankind for
Adam’s sin,” thus reasoning from within on this issue. However, Scripture warns
man to not do that! We are not to reason from within when coming to theological
conclusions but instead we are told to stick to what God says in His Word (2
Timothy 3:16-17). Because everyone’s
mind is tainted with sin this means our reasoning, unless it is subordinate to
God’s divine revelation, is untrustworthy and inclined towards false ideas
(Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:4, 11; 1 Cor. 1:21; 3:18-21; 1 Jn 3:20). In Scripture we’re
warned to not lean on our understanding but instead to submit to God’s truths. Proverbs 3:5 says: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on
your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5).
Proverbs 28:26 also says “Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but
he who walks in wisdom will be delivered” (Proverbs 28:26). As a matter of fact, Holy Scripture reveals
that, concerning doctrinal issues, reasoning from within instead of relying on
God’s Word results in unbelievers and believers believing false teachings and
ideas. Mark 2:6-8 says “6But there were certain of the scribes sitting
there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7Why doth this man thus speak
blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8And immediately when Jesus
perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto
them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?” (Mark 2:6-8). Also, Luke 3:15 says, “15And as the people were in
expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether he
were the Christ” (Luke 3:15).
Therefore, it is unbiblical to deny original sin just because it may not sit
right with a person’s Western presuppositions regarding fairness. We need to
affirm things if they are in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and not ignore or
reject them no matter what.
Saying “I don’t think God would make man inherit Adam’s guilt and a corrupted
nature” is an example of viewing your imperfect mind as the authority you
submit to instead of bowing to God’s truth as contained in His perfect,
reliable, infallible Word. It is idolatry to operate in that way.
The
second danger is that when you deny the first imputation (i.e., the imputation
of Adam’s guilt and sin nature to man) many Pelagians (such as Jesse Morrell
and Kerrigen Skelly on youtube) end up denying the two other critical
imputations (the imputation of the believers’ sin to Christ on the cross and
the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers). If imputation is
falsely understood to be unjust or unfair then the other two end up being
discarded as well and you are all the sudden left denying the very gospel
message of salvation itself! If you deny believers’ sins are imputed to Christ
on the cross (i.e., substitutionary atonement) then you deny the biblical
teaching that Christ died for our sins.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.