The following two appendices are excerpts from my book, When Lies Become Truth.
I will begin with what I believe to be false, which is the idea that we have a “free will” that can only choose evil. That is so obviously wrong, it amazes me that so many believe it is true.
You might be surprised to learn that many theologians don’t believe our will is truly free. They may claim that our will is free, but they don’t genuinely believe it. Using a conveniently new definition of free will, they teach that we never actually lose our freedom. But freedom then becomes a hollow idea. Even worse, freedom ends up meaning slavery. They have convinced themselves of their own lies. Then there are those Christians who steadfastly support the dogma of Inability and inconsistently argue that our wills are free. They don’t seem to realize that Inability must mean our wills aren’t free by definition.
The falsehood is that we have free will and can only choose evil.
The truth is that we have the free will to choose between good and evil.
True freedom of the will concerns itself with what I can will or choose for God, not just against Him. Augustine was accurate when he said sinless Adam had free will. Moral liberty is the ability to choose for or against God. I use the terms’ moral liberty’ and ‘free will’ synonymously, and in an ethical context only. Augustine doesn’t, as we shall see. Like Augustine, some believe Adam and his posterity lost free will, as just defined, with Adam’s sin. Adam’s children have a new kind of free will. However, this new free will is not free to obey God. This new free will is a slave of sin. Freedom now means slavery. Don’t we now have a new definition of free will? We do. How can we use words to communicate with each other when the standard definition of a word is forsaken, and the opposite idea is the new meaning of that word?
Why did America fight a civil war to free the slaves, along with other issues like states’ rights? If slaves are truly free persons, why fight a war? I guess Americans, especially slaves, believed that being free and being a slave were obscene concepts. But in theology, this “obscene concept” is easily accepted and passionately defended. I really don’t understand it. However, I admit I am untrained in the art of theology.
We will examine what the father (Augustine) of this falsehood, that our will isn’t free, taught and believed. Many, of course, would object to such a statement. They believe in a kind of free will. I will demonstrate that they have altered the definition so that they can argue that humans have free will, even though it is very clear that humans do not have free will. They want it both ways. They seem to lack the courage to stand for what they truly believe, so they hide behind complicated and confusing arguments.
Augustine
R. C. Sproul, in relating Augustine’s position on free will, states the following. “In creation, said Augustine, man had the—ability to sin and the—ability not to sin. Even in this state divine assistance was available to him… This gracious assistance enabled Adam to continue in his original state, but did not compel him to persevere in it.”[1]
Here is a good definition of free will, one that I can agree with. Free will is the faculty that allows us to choose between God and self, between good and evil, between sin and righteousness. Free will doesn’t mean we don’t need God’s assistance. A moral or good person chooses or wills what is right. I believe that humans have free will and can choose between good and evil. Like Adam, God’s gracious assistance helps, not forces us to be holy. To be a moral being, subject to moral law, you must be able to choose what is right as opposed to what is wrong. A person is not a moral being, subject to moral law, if he can only choose what is good. The opposite is also true. A person is not a moral being if they can only choose what is wrong. Morality or freedom of the will involves making choices between right and wrong. Thus far, I agree with Augustine. As we proceed, we shall see how this definition undergoes a radical change. All in an attempt to deny free will and hold to it at the same time.
Free will is the ability to sin and the ability not to sin.
Free will is not just the ability to sin.
Free will is not just the ability not to sin.
If the ability—not to sin—is taken away, then there is no free will. It’s not an issue of morals. Free will requires both conditions, and each condition must be a real possibility. Eliminate either one, and we are not talking about free will or morals but something else.
“How can a creature with no prior inclination to evil suddenly and spontaneously become so inclined? This is the great poser of the fall, and it remains the most difficult question we continue to face about this event.”[2]
The event is original sin. Time and time again, Mr. Sproul underestimates the power of lust and temptation as an adequate cause or source of sin. I understand it this way. God creates moral beings. They desire some of what they must not possess. This provides the Creator with a test for His children. God tests us to prove our love. Will we check our desire, say no to self, and trust Him? Satan and his followers said they didn’t trust God. They sinned. Adam did the same thing. He let his desire overrule what he knew to be the right thing to do. He sinned. When a man trusts God and says no to his desires, when they conflict with the known will of God, God then knows He is truly loved. God gives those desires, which are the occasion for our testing. Even so, God never tempts anyone to sin. God wants those who choose Him when it costs them something. Even though they could freely reject him, they freely choose Him. Is this not the only way God can receive love? He could force us to obey Him, but that would eliminate our free response of love. Could it be any other way and make sense?
The doctrine of original sin forms the foundation of Augustine’s understanding of free will. According to him, in the fall, Adam and his descendants lost the ability to resist sin. In other words, after the fall, mankind can only do one thing: sin. Try to reconcile that with the next idea, which is reflected in his book. The author emphasizes that Augustine taught that mankind was created with the capacity for choice, meaning humans possess free will.
Animals that cannot think or choose cannot be moral agents. An ethical agent must be able to choose between good and evil, sin and virtue, self and God, and vice versa.
A moral being or agent, which is accountable to God’s laws, must be able to choose virtue or vice. But how can Augustine claim we are capable of moral action—”either virtue or vice”—when we can only select vice? It’s a hopeless contradiction. Augustine and his followers seem to believe that up and down are simultaneously interchangeable. They appear to think that right means right and wrong at the same time. Augustine clearly affirms that man before and after the fall possesses free will. The ability to choose, or the faculty of the will, remains in man even after the fall. Augustine insists we “always” have free will. Now, here is the catch: this “free” will can be either an evil or a good free will, a contradiction in terms on its face. We will come back to this in a moment. Augustine believes that the choices we make must be voluntary, not necessitated or involuntary. He thinks this is a condition of moral obligation, guilt, or merit.[3] I agree. Augustine sounds Pelagian, doesn’t he? The actions of the will must be voluntary, and free will is still in our possession even after the fall. I will demonstrate to the reader that the expression “free will” assumes a distinct meaning in Augustinian theology following the Fall. Free will now means the ability to choose only what is evil, but this is supposedly done voluntarily. I don’t wish to be unkind, but is this not sophistry? Is this not an apparent attempt to hide the truth in a bunch of words?
Sproul then quotes Augustine when he insists that man has lost the freedom of his will in the fall. How are these two Augustinian contradictions to be reconciled? On one hand, he says man has free will; on the other hand, man has lost the freedom of his will. The answer lies in his distinction between free will and liberty. We often think of liberty and freedom as the same thing, but not with Augustine. When Augustine writes about free will, he means that we make choices without being influenced by external forces. In other words, no one outside of ourselves forces us to do anything.
Dear reader, please remain vigilant so you don’t miss this important distinction. It’s an “internal” force, not an “external” force or constraint—a kind of internal evil, free will. Now, an internal evil free will is “free” to choose only evil. You might ask, “How is that free?” It isn’t free, and that’s clear. The external force or constraint comment is misleading. It’s an empty cistern.
The author Sproul explains that Augustine taught that the sinner is both free and not free at the same time. The sinner is free to choose any sin he wants (his will is free), but not free to choose anything other than sin (his will is not free). The sinner only desires sin and is free to satisfy that desire whenever he chooses, but he is not free to stop sinning. The sinner can fulfill his passion for sinful pleasures (will is free), but he does not have the liberty to choose goodness (will is not free).
My love of God compels me to say that this is a lot of double talk and religious jargon. Augustine initially defines free will as the ability to choose between good and evil; however, it now seems to imply that we are free to select all the evil we want, but not good.
Humanity chooses only evil, but it is done voluntarily. Even though we can only choose evil, it remains a voluntary act. I regret to say that his words amount to nothing. Is it mean-spirited of me to say that this is the most unsatisfactory and unconvincing argument I have ever read? I am supposed to believe that I have free will, as all moral agents must, but I have lost the liberty to choose between good and evil because of the fall of Adam. Yet, I still have free will, even if it isn’t free to choose good. How can I help but conclude that the emperor has no clothes!
Before the operation of God’s grace, according to Augustine, the sinner is in bondage to sin because he is neither free nor able to do what is right. God must grant the sinner the ability and freedom to do what is right through grace by faith.
Let me surprise you by saying that it’s not grace to give man the ability to obey the law. That’s fundamental justice. Ability is a level playing field. It’s justice, not grace. Remember, according to Augustine, that the unredeemed have a free will to do wrong but lack the freedom to do right. Doesn’t this make you wonder? Isn’t it disrespectful to God to call ability grace? Grace only comes into play when those who can obey choose to disobey Him. Moreover, they have no excuse for their sin, such as inability.
I want to conclude this section on Augustine’s views with one final reference. Augustine’s position, as some see it, means that God saves us who are really unwilling to be saved and that God does this against our wills and forces us “kicking and screaming” into His kingdom without our consent.[4] Sproul says this is not the case and is, in fact, a blatant distortion of Augustine’s position. My reaction to Sproul’s statement is disappointment and frustration. The language Sproul declares is a gross distortion of Augustine’s view, but it is not a distortion in my untrained opinion. According to Augustine, no unredeemed person is willing to be saved. Therefore, God must make that person willing. By definition, God does this without their prior consent, permission, and voluntary submission. God acts on them like the law of gravity. Is this not being done against their will? It is and it must be, according to Augustine’s theology, for unredeemed man is unwilling to be saved. Salvation is strictly unconditional. Now, when the unsaved man is in fact saved, through no effort, willingness, or work of his own, he instantly becomes willing because God forced him to possess a good free will. An unsaved man had no choice. There are no conditions to be met for him to be saved. At that point, it isn’t true that he is saved against his will, for he now has a new will, a good, free will. This ‘good free will’ desires to be saved. Does my frustration have any basis, or have I been too critical for no good reason?
Mr. Sproul cites a story about a professor who loves to use the writings of Charles G. Finney in his graduate classes because they are so clear. Finney leaves no doubt about what he is saying. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in multiple disciplines to understand what he believed. I would that were true of the writings of Sproul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. Why don’t they reach an understandable point? Why is it that their explanations seem so contrived, confusing, and contradictory? Why don’t their answers make sense? Did God write the Bible[5] in such a way that only the trained theologian and scholar would be able to understand it? Or did God write the Bible in terms that the least of us could understand what He wants of us?
I do not doubt Mr. Sproul’s love for God. I assume he loves Jesus Christ with all his heart. However, I must say that his arguments seem nonsensical to me, and in some cases, obscene. I can’t understand how such a brilliant man can write and defend ideas so full of obvious contradictions, double talk, and deceptive language. One of us is confused, and you, the reader, must decide which one.
Does defending the truth ever justify such strong language? Some of you may think not. If so, we disagree. In my view, the lack of theological candor is one of the main reasons why we (church and culture) are in such a deeply immoral state. I believe it’s our duty to speak the truth in love and trust God with the outcomes.
Appendix
Original Sin Dogma
We Are Born Sinners
Doesn’t every Christian believe in Original Sin? Doesn’t every Christian think we’re born with a sinful nature?
Most Christians, I believe, think that the Bible clearly and unmistakably teaches that 1) all of us are born with the guilt of Adam’s first or his original sin, and 2) we inherit a sinful nature from Adam as a consequence of his sin.
This sinful nature that we are born with is the source and cause of all our sins. We are born sinners, who can do nothing but sin. We don’t become sinners by sinning. We are born sinners because we inherit a sinful nature and character from Adam. As children of Adam, we can’t do good, only evil, until God regenerates us. To the best of my knowledge, the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, teaches this doctrine as a foundational article of faith. It is the foundation for most of the Christian world and Christian Theology.
If almost everyone agrees on it, why then talk about it? Of what practical importance is it?
Believe it or not, there has always been a small group of Christians who do not believe in this Original Sin teaching. I think the biblical evidence warrants reconsidering this almost sacred ‘orthodox’ belief. Is it really faithful to scripture? Is it reasonable, and does it make sense?
Many other false doctrines are born out of the false teaching on Original Sin and Adam’s posterity being born with a sinful nature. We will consider some of them. And with those erroneous ideas come a flood of confusion, misunderstandings, sin, unrighteousness, and death. All false teaching produces harm, not good. That in turn sends many to hell, even those who profess to know and love God.
Below are reasons why this error of Original Sin persists;
- To teach against this wrong idea of original sin, imputed guilt, an inherited sinful nature, and total depravity is to invite the disapproval and scorn of the religious establishment and most other Christians. It is to subject yourself to ridicule, to be mocked, to be marginalized, and to be called a heretic and or a Pelagian.
- The spirit of a new believer is eager to learn and is very open to what he hears, even if it doesn’t make much sense. Most new Christians are taught this mistake and told that it is the only correct (acceptable) view, so they hold on to it. Many new Christians are under the illusion that God’s ways are very different from how things work on earth.
- False doctrine always comes with Biblical proof texts to support it. Every false doctrine can be “proved” from the Bible by taking passages out of context. More on this as we study the proof texts for original sin.
- False doctrine persists because it has been taught and believed for such a long time. There is enormous peer pressure not to leave the doctrines of your group or your church. There is safety in numbers. Galileo and Copernicus, with great courage, taught that the Earth is not the center of the universe or the galaxy, a concept that contradicted Christian teachings. That error persisted for well over 1,000 years. Some false ideas are even older than this one. The false dogma of Original Sin dates back to the 5th century. Most Christians still cling to it today.
- Christian leaders and ministers perpetuate ignorance, confusion, disagreements, misunderstandings, and error among Christians. Then the masses of churchgoers must come to them for answers. How few Pharisees were teachable! How many seminary-trained Pastors and Priests today are teachable? Jesus went to the Pharisees as He comes to us, as the Truth, the Life, and the Way. Yet, His own received Him not.
- God allows false doctrine to persist because men value it more than they value the Word of God. Our unbelief and ignorance sustain false doctrine. It is a shocking truth that many professing Christians do not honestly believe the Word of God. They may accept some truths but reject others that do not align with their wishes, hopes, and preferences. Francis Bacon once said that “men prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” Not what is true, but what they want to be true. A clear example is the fact that an increasing number of professing Christian believers now accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression, even though the Bible unmistakably condemns this sin.
- Remember that persisting in a belief against evidence, refusing evidence, or avoiding proof shows insincerity and a lack of moral integrity. (Randolf Sinks Foster, 1890, Studies in Theology).
If Original Sin and being born with a sinful nature are true, then how can we be saved if we can’t save ourselves?
God must be the sole cause of salvation. As a direct result of believing in Original Sin, inability, and total depravity, many Christians believe that God is and must be the sole cause of salvation. Sinful mankind is not able to do anything good, including believe and repent, to save itself. They think all of us are born enemies of God who rightfully share in Adam’s guilt and are on our way to hell. We sin naturally and unavoidably. This is what they call total depravity, which is an irresistible craving for sin. When God regenerates the elect, He gives the elect a new nature, a good nature, or in other words, a good free will. Our evil nature and our good nature are in a perpetual state of conflict. The bad nature is most often victorious, even with the grace and power of God enabling us.
The atonement,as it turns out, is inadequate to meet our deepest needs if this dogma of Original Sin is true. The blood of Jesus Christ is inadequate to save us from the practice of sinning and to save us from bondage to our sinful lusts and passions.
But not every professing Christian believes that God alone is the exclusive cause of salvation. Some Christians believe that humans must do something, like believe in Jesus Christ, to be saved. For these believers, mankind has both the power and responsibility to believe as a condition for salvation. However, they also believe that we inherit a tendency or bent for sin when we are born. They see the injustice of God in holding us guilty for Adam’s sin at birth, so they maintain that God’s grace forgives infants of this guilt. This idea is not explicitly taught in the Bible, but it is considered a necessary belief so that God does not seem unjust. John Wesley taught the concept of prevenient grace to “satisfy” this concern.
Is the justice of God really rescued by believing that babies are born guilty of Adam’s sin, but God’s grace forgives babies of the guilt? It is not. Why? Because we are born with a sinful nature, which we inherit from Adam, who is the source and cause of all our sins. We may be forgiven of Adam’s guilt, but we are not prevented from inheriting a depraved nature from our father Adam. In other words, we are going to sin unavoidably and be sent to hell. Tell me again about the justice of God if you believe this is true?
Is there just one theory or explanation regarding Original Sin that every Christian believes in?
Most Christians probably don’t understand that there are a number of theories, at least four (4) that I am aware of, about what is called original sin, not just one theory that everyone agrees to. And the proponents of each theory refute the other theories very well. Which theory is the right one, or are any of them correct? I suggest to you that none of them is correct. By that I mean that none of the theories is reasonable, rational, or Biblical.
What did the early or primitive church believe for the first few hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ?
As you now know from reading this article, it seems very few Christians understand that the primitive church did not believe in original sin and that it did not become a doctrine of the church until the 5th century under Augustine. For the first 400 or so years, this original sin dogma was not accepted or taught, even though the seeds of it started to come forth with a few church fathers such as Origen and Tertullian in the years preceding Augustine.
Why do you suppose the early church did not believe in Original Sin and a sinful nature? Maybe the problems below had something to do with that fact.
- Was Jesus born a sinner? Scripture says Christ was born as a real man. He was born in the flesh. Was Jesus born with a sinful nature or a craving for sin like you and me? Who can believe such a horrible thing? Jesus was not a sinner, but He was a real man in every sense of the word. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
- How can it be true that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, when most Christians insist that Jesus was born without a sinful or depraved nature? If so, then how is it true that Christ knows what it is like to be tempted when the craving for sin is irresistible? Impossible! How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
- Don’t most Christians believe Jesus couldn’t sin? I ask kindly, what then was Jesus tempted to do, if not to sin? If it is true that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature, then how could Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are? Are we to believe that we can’t resist sin, and Christ can’t sin, yet Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted as we are? Impossible. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
- Doesn’t the Word of God teach us that God provides a way of escape from every temptation? If this Original Sin and total depravity dogma is actual, then that scripture is false, as there is no escaping sin for those born with a sinful nature. Everyone will succumb when tempted and sin unavoidably, with no exceptions. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
- If it is true that mankind is born with a sinful nature, which is the source and cause of sin, it can’t be the devil’s temptation that leads us to sin, as the scripture clearly indicates. Moreover, the scriptures that warn us about the devil are ridiculous. The devil doesn’t need to tempt anyone if this doctrine is true. Is the devil an idiot going around tempting people who are already preprogrammed to sin? With this false dogma, God is the real problem. He made the laws that govern how we come by our nature. And those laws require that we are born sinners without our knowledge or consent. We are born sinners, who sin naturally and unavoidably. Is God really doing the devil’s job for him? Impossible! How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
- Is God a just and holy God or not? Every theory of original sin makes God unjust, cruel, and even criminal. Strong words for sure. You decide, as you consider these objections to the Original Sin and sinful nature doctrine.
- Are we really guilty of another person’s sins? On what planet in the universe might that ever make any sense at all? Think about it. How is it that Christians are so gullible? How is it that we believe things which thinking people would never believe unless it is clouded into a mystical and superstitious world of religion, religious practices, religious beliefs, and religious words?
Can any act be a moral wrong on earth, but not in heaven? Can anything be unjust in heaven, but just on the planet?
Many Christians believe that spiritual things operate differently from earthly things. It’s a huge problem. What is unjust here on earth is apparently just in heaven. Can you imagine a more palpable miscarriage of justice than a case where someone is found guilty for the sins and crimes of another person? When we hear of someone being sent to prison for a crime they did not commit, we are indignant, aren’t we? Rightfully so. Who would call that justice? It is an injustice. All of us are up in arms when that happens. But when God does the very same thing to us, according to the doctrine of Original Sin, we keep silent and assume that God’s ways are higher than our ways. We think that our religious teachers must know more about this than we do. We believe that we are not supposed to understand how this works. We are taught to accept, without question, what, on careful examination, makes no sense whatsoever. We are taught to accept what our reason could never agree to.
And many of us are under the delusion that each generation is getting better and evolving into something more special, intelligent, and holy than the generation before us. How wrong can we be? I suspect that what is called Christian today would have been unthinkable not long ago and not recognized as Christian in any sense of the word. Yes, there are generational improvements in such things as technology and medicine, for instance, that do advance from generation to generation based on accumulated knowledge.However, godliness is not a matter of more knowledge or more technical prowess but of humility, obedience, faith, trust, and sacrifice.
Are we really guilty of another person’s sins?
Are we really guilty of Adam’s sin? You and I are no more guilty for Adam’s sin than we are for Hitler’s sin or the sin of our parents. Our irresistible affirmations of reason attest to this truth. The Bible is obvious on this subject of personal accountability. I offer two passages.
“Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:2.
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity: the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20.
Next, we will consider some of the objections to not believing in the dogma of Original Sin.
Objection: Don’t the Mosaic Laws governing property inheritance suggest that Original Sin is actual and handed down to us through the male gender?
I had a person in a men’s group I was teaching object to what I presented on this subject. The objection, I think, conflates the laws and practices regarding property inheritance rights with the doctrine of original sin and being born with a sin nature. It was posited that only men get the inheritance based on the laws regarding property inheritance. While it is true that the inheritance of property (land, cattle, and money) went through the man and not the woman, there is at least one Biblical example where the woman received the property inheritance. More importantly, property inheritance rights have nothing to do with the inheritance of Original Sin and being born with a sin nature.
Property is a substance (money, land, cattle), and sin is not a substance. Sin is a choice, an evil choice. Property and substance are essentially the same thing and are governed by the laws of nature in the physical universe. Choice is an act of free will and is governed by moral law, not physical law. Substance is governed by an entirely different law, not based on free will. Choice or free will is based on the laws for action, and physical laws are governed by the laws of action. These two laws govern everything in the universe that God created.
Also, the act of procreation, which brings a new human being into existence by natural law, is the combination of 50% of the chromosomes from the man and 50% from the woman. I am aware of no scientist or Christian who disputes this reality. And that is how we inherit specific physical characteristics from our parents. Concerning the birth of Jesus, it seems reasonable to expect that God the Father miraculously supplied 50% of the chromosomes for Jesus, while Mary supplied the other 50%. Jesus inherited his physical nature from both his Father and his mother not just his Father.
Property inheritance rights have nothing to do with what we inherit in being born into the human family. To suggest that the laws of property inheritance supersede the laws regarding procreation is inappropriate, as it denies the reality of what happens in procreation.
Objection: Adam and Eve sinned, and God’s curse was pronounced. We are born with a sinful nature as a result of God’s curse.
If I understand the objection correctly, we are discussing the three curses in Genesis chapter 3. None of the following curses explains or has anything to do with the inheritance of a sinful nature. Please read it for yourself.
Adam and Eve sinned. Sin was 1) known to be a prohibited action or disobedience, and 2) a deliberate, willful violation of a known commandment of God, with 3) the judgment of death stipulated as the penalty for the sin. This is what sin looks like, and it contains all three elements as cited above. Original sin and the sin nature, as the cause and source of sin, can’t be true because, as the proponents of Original Sin stipulate, there is no choice or deliberate willful violation of a commandment of God. Our nature makes us sin, not our will, so they maintain. Therefore, it can’t be a sin to do what you are preprogrammed to do. Adam and Eve sinned because they could have and should have chosen differently than they did.
Verses 14 and 15 of Genesis Chapter 3: God curses the serpent…” above all cattle, and every beast of the field, upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the day of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel”. There is no hint at all of what we now call Original Sin and the Sin Nature.
In verse 16, God pronounces His judgment on the woman in greatly multiplying her sorrows related to childbirth, but that her desire would still be toward her husband, “and he shall rule over thee.” The curse for the woman is very specific, and it has nothing to do with Original Sin and a sin nature being passed on to her children. In many cases, having a man rule over a woman is indeed a curse of monumental proportions.
In verse 17, God pronounces His judgment on Adam: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” Verse 18 talks about thorns and thistles shall bring forth to him but he shall eat the herb of the field and verse 19 God says, “in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, till thou return to the ground for out of it thou wast taken, for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” Not one word about what we call the consequences of Original Sin on Adam’s descendants. Note the phrase, “cursed is the ground for the sake.” This curse on the ground was for Adam’s sake, for his good and our good. Adam and his posterity would now be required to keep very busy earning a living with minimal idle time for getting into trouble.
Again, not a word about what we are calling Original Sin, as defined by its proponents as 1) humanity incurring the guilt of Adam’s sin and 2) being born with a sinful nature that can only sin. This is not stipulated or even implied as a part of the curse on Adam.
I do not see where there is any relevance whatsoever in this chapter to the subject of original sin. None of the four theories advanced by the proponents of Original Sin/Sin Nature over the last 1500 years discusses the curses in Genesis Chapter 3 as the basis for their theory. And I can readily see why, as it has no bearing on the subject as far as I can tell.
Objection: If we do not have a sin nature, then it might be possible that someone never sins and doesn’t need Jesus to save them from their sins.
This objection is often brought up and is one of several additional objections used by those who believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and the Sin Nature. For a more comprehensive study of this subject, I recommend purchasing the following book. Much of this appendix is taken from Mr. Overstreet’s book. Are Men Born Sinners? The myth of Original Sin, by Alfred T. Overstreet. His book is an exhaustive and definitive treatment of this subject, as well as the objections. The following is a direct quote from his book.
Overstreet’s Response: “This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies that it would be criminal, wicked and sinful for anyone to live a life without sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men to be depraved sinners…It implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his life and never sinned against him. It implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey God. And why? Because if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be saved. What logic!”
The truth is that we can obey God. We are born with that ability, contrary to the dogma of Original Sin and Sin Nature. We can obey God, but don’t; that makes us sinners who are blameworthy and deserving of eternal death. But if we were not able to follow God’s commands, then sin is not sin, and we are not blameworthy and have nothing to repent of.
Next, we will examine the proof texts used to support the doctrine of Original Sin. I am aware of the following six (6) “proof texts”.
1. Psalm 51:5 reads, “Behold, I was shapen iniquity; and is sin did my mother conceive me.”
What is the context? Is it figurative or literal? In verses 7 and 8, David says, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.” Does hyssop purge sins? Does God break our bones when we sin? No on both counts.
David confesses his awful guilt for his sins and asks God to create in him a clean heart in verse 10. David cries out for forgiveness of his sins with a repentant heart, and he uses hyperbolic and figurative language to describe it. He was not stating that he was born a sinner, which would be the perfect excuse for not accepting responsibility for sinning. Instead, he was confessing his voluntary and willful sin for which he alone is blameworthy. He is undoubtedly not blaming God for making him a sinner. Why would David confess his sorrow over something he had no control over and was the only possible result of being born a sinner who can do nothing but sin?
Was John the Baptist born a sinner? If so, why does scripture tell us that John was full of the Holy Spirit while in the womb? What about Job, and what does scripture say about him? How about the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 1:5:
“Before I formed you in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee a prophet unto the nations.” Does that sound like Jeremiah was born a sinner?
2. Psalm 58:3 reads, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”
We know that babies do not start speaking right after birth, and they do not lie immediately either. It takes months for babies to develop the ability to communicate. This is a case of figurative language confirmed by reality.
This Psalm of David describes the righteous judgment of the wicked by a holy God. You will notice in verses 10 and 11 that David acknowledges, “the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth thy vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.” KJV. Do the saints of God wash their feet in the blood of the wicked? Like much of this chapter, it is a figure of speech.
Once again, using hyperbolic and figurative language, David speaks about the guilt of the wicked and how they have practiced evil throughout their lives, starting from the beginning of their moral agency or age of accountability. However, there can be no guilt for sin if we are born sinners who sin naturally and unavoidably. God will never condemn someone for committing unavoidable sin, but will justly condemn us for sins we refuse to avoid.
“If this text, or any other text from the Bible, teaches that babies are sinners by birth, then it teaches that all newborn babies are children of the devil. For the Bible teaches that all sinners are children of the devil. John 8:44, I John 3:8-10, as cited by Alfred T. Overstreet.
- Job 14:4 reads, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”
Some say that this passage teaches that sinful parents can only produce sinful children. Are we to assume that everyone who has ever had a child has been sinning at the time of conception or birth? How many parents have repented of their sins before having children? Do pure parents produce pure children? Must that be the case if impure parents produce impure children? Is sin a substance? Is holiness a substance that is physically passed from parent to child? The context of verses 1 and 2 suggests that Job is talking about how brief life is for all people: “he cometh forth as a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.” KJV. Frail and dying parents give birth to children like themselves in this regard. We are all like flowers that are soon cut down.
- Job 15:14 reads, “What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” KJV
Note the context, “Then answered Eliphas.” Who was he, and was he correct in what he told Job?” He was a friend, but was very wrong in his assessment of what happened to Job and why it happened. He was sure that Job was a terrible sinner, like most other men; therefore, these horrible things that happened to Job were God’s punishment because of Job’s sin. He was wrong, as God says in Job 42:7.
Recall what Jesus told those who inquired about a man born with a physical disability. His disciples asked Jesus if it was due to this man’s or his parent’s sins. Jesus replied that the reason for his disability has nothing to do with his sin or his parents’ sins but is part of God’s plan.
- Romans 5:12,18,19 KJV, read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…..Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of the one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
This is the passage most often used to support the belief in Original Sin, even though it doesn’t teach everything they claim it does.
“The apostle here draws a comparison between the evil potency in the sinning Adam and the beneficent or saving potency in the righteous Christ….Both are pictured according to their tendency rather than according to literal fact.” (Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine).
Suppose these passages teach that we are born sinners because of Adam. In that case, it also teaches that all humanity will be saved because of what Jesus did, “Therefore as by the offence of one (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of the one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Does everyone go to heaven?
No one is made sinful or righteous involuntarily! It’s absurd.
- Ephesians 2:3 reads,
“And were by nature the children of wrath, even as the others.”
This verse doesn’t teach that babies are born with a sinful nature and therefore are born “children of wrath.” Not even close. How is the word nature used in language and scripture? Nature often refers to the voluntary character of a person, not the visible or physical nature a person is born with.
What is the context? Chapter 2 verses 1, 2, and 3. “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins…in times past ye walked….according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. We also …… in times past walked in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” KJV
Those who choose to walk in disobedience are children of wrath spoken about in this text. These are by voluntary choice or by nature and character, children of wrath. It says nothing at all about being born a sinner. What we do habitually becomes our nature. Our nature doesn’t cause our habits. Our habits make our nature or our moral character.
What about passages that appear to teach the exact opposite of Original Sin? Why are these versus rarely ever considered? These verses are from the KJV of the Bible.
Psalm 22:9 and 10 reads, “Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother’s breast. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb.”
Psalm 70:5 and 6 reads, “For thou are my hope, O Lord God: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: that art he that took me out of my mother’s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.”
“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Ecclesiastes 7:29.
These and other passages do not teach that men are born sinners. Logic, reason, common sense, and the Word of God all agree that we are sinners because we voluntarily choose to sin when we could have chosen otherwise. We are not sinners because we were involuntarily born a sinner who can only sin because of our inherited sinful nature.
[1] Willing to Believe, R. C. Sproul,Ibid,p.52.
[2] Ibid.,p.53.
[3] Ibid.,p.62. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[4] Willing to Believe,Ibid.,p.65. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[5] Obviously, I know that the Word of God was written by about 40 human authors over 1600 hundred years more or less.
