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, which 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/character from Adam. As children of Adam, we can’t do good, only evil, until God regenerates us. As far as I know, the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, teaches this dogma as a foundational article of the 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 have always been a small group of Christians who do not believe in this Original Sin teaching. I think the Biblical evidence demands that we rethink this almost sacred orthodox belief. Is it 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 more reasons why this error 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.

• As already mentioned, the spirit of a new believer is eager to be taught and is very receptive to what he is told, even when it makes little sense. Most new Christians are indoctrinated into this error and are told that it is the only orthodox (acceptable) position; therefore, they cling to it. Many new Christian’s are under the delusion that the things of God operate much differently than the way things on earth operate. Even if it makes no sense, they cling to error.
• 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, contrary to the teachings of Christianity. That error persisted for well over 1,000 years. Some false ideas are even older than this one. The dogma of Original Sin dates back to the 5^th century.
• 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 remain for so long because men cherish it more than they do the Word of God. Our unbelief and ignorance perpetuate false doctrine. It is a fantastic truth that many professing Christians do not believe the Word of God. They may accept some truth, but they reject many other truths because they do not support them. 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 perfect example is the fact that an ever-growing number of professing Christian believers are now embracing homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression, when 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 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 battle. 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 insufficient 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 sole cause of salvation. Other Christians believe that man must do something to be saved, like believe in Jesus Christ. For these Christians, mankind has the power and responsibility to believe as a condition of salvation. However, they, too, believe that we inherit a taste 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 the guilt of Adam’s sin. You will not find this truth taught directly in the Bible, but it is a necessary belief; otherwise, God is unjust. John Wesley taught the idea of prevenient grace to “satisfy” this concern.

            Is the justice of God 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. And this 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 several 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 are 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?

            It seems very few Christians realize that the primitive church did not believe in original sin, and it did not become a doctrine of the church until the 5th century under Augustine. He greatly influenced the Roman Catholic Church. For the first 400 or so years, this doctrine of original sin was neither accepted nor taught, even though the seeds of it began to surface with a few church fathers such as Origen and Tertullian in the years before Augustine.

Why do you suppose the early church did not believe in Original Sin and a sinful nature? Maybe the problems below were related to that fact.

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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 impossible for Christ to sin? Yet we are asked to believe that Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted as we are? Impossible. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
4. 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 true, 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?
5. 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 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 doing the devil’s job for him? Impossible! How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
6. 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.
7. Are we guilty for 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.

From the website, crosstheology.wordpress.com, we find the following quote. This website provides excellent information about the primitive church’s rejection of the idea of Original Sin.

 “Augustine himself. A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him…When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St Augustine was angry with Pelagius: Hence, he slandered and abused him (as his manner was) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards; There needed no other proof of any assertion than “lpse dixit.” St. Augustine said it.” (This comes from John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 1835 Edition, volume 2, p. 110).

What a critical comment, which does not speak well of the conduct of Augustine, from one of the most vital voices in the last 500 years. John Wesley was one of the most influential men in my life. He believed in Original Sin, but was not buying Augustine’s other errors and his un-Christian-like conduct.

This website boldly proclaims that “Free Will and not Original Sin (total inability, total depravity, and so on) was the historic Christian position”!

Calvinists, even today, almost always state emphatically that the doctrine of total depravity and total inability (Original Sin) is the only historic position of the Christian Church since Christ. That, according to this site and what I have learned, is simply false.

“For the first 300 to 400 years, the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early church, “without exception,” according to this site. Early Christians were constantly defending free will from this false Gnostic belief, which taught total inability, determination, or fatalism. The early church believed that man’s free will determined his course in life and destiny”. Like some Christians today, the Gnostics thought that they were the only true Christians. They felt that by the fall of Adam, mankind lost all ability to believe, obey, and choose between good and evil. The early church did not think any of this. Free will was the orthodox position. When was the last time you heard that statement?

For many Christians today, if another Christian denies total depravity and total inability, they are the first ones to condemn them as being heterodox. They claim to be orthodox. Name-calling comes way too easily for many Christians.

“The Gnostics, including the Manichaeans, denied free will, while the early church believed that man must always have the ability or command over his own actions. Therefore, men and women must be able to choose good over evil. Manichaeans believed that mankind was under a “fatal necessity of sinning.” Laymen Beecher (a Presbyterian minister who died in 1863) said, “..the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church….natural inability was to that of pagan philosophers, the Gnostics and the Manichaeans” as quoted from this site. Many, not all, Gnostic groups denied free will. “But one of the greatest threats to the early church was the Manichaeans, started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.”

The early church thought that the Gnostic and Manichaean error was a great threat to the Christian Church. They taught that the flesh was evil and sinful in itself. Flesh was a sinful substance. Therefore, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 call them antichrist. The Gnostic sects taught that man was sinful by birth, but Christians taught that man was sinful by choice, 1 John 2:9.

A proof text for ‘free will’ Christians is the following passage. “Paul in Philippians 4:3 mentions my fellow laborers in the gospel, and he names Clement (died AD 99),whose name he said was written in the book of life”. History knows this man as Clement of Rome. He wrote the following. “It is therefore in the power of everyone, since man has been made possessed of free will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.”

Clement further said that free will was given because “he who is good by his own choice is really good: but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice.” (As quoted by Clement on this site). I love that statement of his. Even if something appears good but is involuntary, it is not good.

Clement also said, “For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” A sinner is punished, not for his inability and total depravity, but because he chooses to sin by a free act of his will. He was negligent. No rational-minded person can object to that, can they?

Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 140) was an early church father and a disciple of John the Apostle. He said men were sinners by choice and not by nature. Ignatius was eaten by lions in the Roman Coliseum for his faith in Jesus Christ. (The website gives two quotes of Ignatius if you are interested).

The apostle John had another disciple named Polycarp (AD 69-155) who was the bishop of Smyrna when the Book of Revelation was written. This was one of the only churches not rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation. He was a personal friend of Ignatius, and he too was martyred in Rome.

Polycarp had a disciple named Irenaeus (120/140-200/203). He refuted the Gnostics by saying, “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments.” (Site gives other quotes by him if you are interested).

Justin Martyr (died 163-167) was an early evangelist and apologist for the Christian Church, and he too was martyred by the Romans. This is what he said. “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. (Beautifully stated.) Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whether they may be – for neither would man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” (Emphasis added). What grand statements that are so obviously true.

Tertullian (160-240) was another leader of the early church, and he agreed with all this thinking about mankind’s free will, yet Augustine apparently found something in his writings suggesting the opposite. This is not unusual, as theologians often say contradictory things.

Methodius (270-312) was a Christian martyr who lived toward the end of the third century. He also agreed and rebuked the pagan idea of fate and the lack of free will. He said that man by nature was not born evil and sinful. (Site lists some of his quotes if you are interested).

Eusebius (died in 339) was a bishop in the early church who is considered the father of Church history. He wrote, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise. As, again, making him who chooses what is worst deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good that is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature.” He went on to say that it was the doctrine of devils to teach that man’s will is not at liberty but in the bonds of necessity. Amen to that!

There are more quotes from other early church fathers that I will not repeat. Check them out for yourself if you are interested.

Summary Remarks

We just reviewed what eight (8) very important church fathers believed. Some of them knew an apostle personally and were students of that apostle. Compare that to Augustine, who: 1) lived hundreds of years later, and, 2) never met an apostle, and, 3) was never tutored by an apostle personally. All of these eight men affirmed free will and rejected the Gnostic and Manichaean error that the flesh was sinful (Original Sin dogma). They categorically rejected what Augustine was peddling regarding imputed guilt and being born with a sinful nature.

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 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 assume that our religious teachers must know more about this than we do. We assume 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 cannot agree with.

            And many of us are under the delusion that each generation is getting better and evolving into something more special, better, and more 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 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 guilty for another person’s sins? Are we guilty for 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.

Some of the most critical reasons why the dogma of original sin must be rejected:

• It conflicts with our God given sense of justice. Sending someone to hell for sinning, that they can’t avoid committing, is injustice. And sending babies to hell for Adam’s sin is injustice under all circumstances.
• It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man’s consciousness and intellect. We all know that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin or Hitler’s sin or our parents’ sin. It is impossible for us to feel and believe that we are guilty apart from a religious deception.
• It makes sin anything but the crime it is. Unavoidable sin is not blameworthy and can never be considered a criminal act. However, the Bible says sin is lawlessness, and it is a criminal act not to be pitied but to be rejected and punished.
• It contradicts the Word of God.There are a few passages of scripture that seem to indicate that we inherit or are born with a sinful nature. All of these are best explained individually, but none of them stand the test. And none of them explain away these very compelling reasons why this dogma must be rejected. One example of a number that we will consider is this verse. In Psalm 58:3, we read, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”  Please remember that the Bible is full of figurative language. It is also full of language that is to be taken literally when the context demands a literal interpretation. This Psalm is not literal due to one simple fact: babies do not have the capacity for speech at birth. It takes many months to develop. When we know an expression is contrary to reality, we are to understand that the writer is employing a figure of speech to make a point.
• It makes God the author of sin and the cruelest person in the universe. God creates the laws that govern how we come by our nature at birth. If we are born with a sinful nature, then God is responsible for sin in the universe. Why didn’t God create us with the nature of a saint and then no one would go to hell. And if God sends sinners, that He created as a sinner, to hell, doesn’t that make Him the most wicked and cruel person in the universe? It also makes God inconsistent and imperfect.
• If it is true, sinners should be pitied and not condemned. If sin is involuntary, then we are not blameworthy and we should be pitied, not judged, and certainly not sent to hell.
• It makes the atonement of Christ an act of justice, not an act of grace. If God creates us sinners, then He owes us justice, and the atonement is necessary because He made us sinners. To be a just God, He must provide an atonement, or He would not be just. But the atonement was a great act of benevolence and grace to an undeserving people who are sinners by choice, not by nature.
• Can a person sin before they are created and come into existence? In what world does that ever make any sense at all? There is no court of law in our depraved world that would find a person guilty for a crime committed before they were born and had life. Yet how many believe that in God’s perfect heaven, He does just that.
• It causes us to wink at, condone, and excuse sin in our lives. Can you think of a better excuse for your sin than being born with an irresistible craving for sin that you can never get rid of, even with God’s grace?
• It makes Jesus a sinner, or it must deny His humanity. Scripture says Jesus was born of the flesh and that Mary was His earthly mother and God His father. Either Jesus was born with a sinful nature, or God never took on flesh and blood.
• It gives birth to many false beliefs and doctrines such as the following:

Immaculate Conception. Mary must be free from original sin so that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature. It is logical, just not Biblical.

Limbo. Unbaptized infants go here instead of hell—an apparent attempt to save the justice of God. If parents don’t have their kids baptized and the baby dies, the baby goes to limbo, not hell. That’s what they say they believe. If the baby dies and goes to limbo, it is not God’s fault; it is the parents’ fault for not getting the baby baptized, right? Limbo is supposedly a place where neither the pains of hell nor the joy of heaven exists. Only blind and deceived men could believe such a ridiculous proposition. Limbo, as it is described, might even be worse than hell. Do babies exist throughout eternity as if in a coma or catatonic state?

Infant baptismal regeneration for the removal of original sin. Made necessary so that babies are not considered sinful and guilty for Adam’s sin. Try to find this doctrine in your Bible. Many Bible believers in the past were put to death by the Roman Catholic Church for rejecting this doctrine.

The dogma that claims men have lost the image of God since the fall of Adam. But scripture says the opposite throughout. You and I have the image and likeness of God in us.

Physical passive regeneration is another false doctrine. If mankind can’t do anything to save themselves, then God is the only active agent in regeneration, and we are passive in regeneration. Our sinful nature gets a new competing nature from God that is not totally depraved but nearly so. Passive physical regeneration is a must because sin is in our blood and or DNA.

Inability to repent, believe, and obey God. Being born with a sinful nature means that you can only sin and that you cannot repent of sin, believe in Christ, and obey the commands of God. Yet you are blameworthy and guilty for not obeying the law of God, even though it is impossible for you to obey the law of God.

Arbitrary election and reprobation. God must elect or choose you to be saved because you have no ability at all to save yourself. If you are not the elect of God, then you will not go to heaven. God could have elected all to salvation, but chose to pass over the mass of humanity and let them go to hell for His Glory. Impossible!

Man doesn’t have free will. If we are born unable to obey, believe, and repent, then we are not free agents and we do not have free will. That is something very few of us would accept, for we know by consciousness that our wills are free to choose between sin and holiness, God and self, and love and hate. Augustine first defined free will as the ability to obey or not to obey, the choice of sin or righteousness, and the decision about doing good or doing bad. If the Original sin dogma is true, then we do not have free will but a will in complete bondage that can do nothing but sin. In other words, we have a free will that is the slave of sin. That is a will, that is not free.

Sin is not a free and voluntary choice but is the result of a depraved nature that we inherit from Adam. This error dates back to around the 5^th century. Augustine was greatly influenced by the heathen ideas prevalent in his day.

Matter is evil. Sin is a substance. The Apostle John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh (matter) as deceivers and antichrists. Some taught and believed that matter (flesh) was sinful in itself; therefore, there is no way that sinless Jesus (God) was a real man like us. To deny Jesus’s deity and his humanity is a significant error and a damnable lie.

In the Apostle’s lifetime, the teaching of the Gnostics had to be refuted. This sect attempted to combine Christianity with heathen eastern religious beliefs, pagan philosophy, and doctrines of mysticism. Gnostics believed that matter or the flesh was evil; therefore, Jesus could not have come in the substance of sinful flesh. It was from this teaching that Augustine birthed the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine, for many years, was a disciple of the Manichaeans, which was a Gnostic sect. His teachings that our physical moral nature, which we inherit from Adam, is sinful had their roots in Gnosticism.

Next, we will consider some of the objections.

 Objection: Don’t the Mosaic Laws governing property inheritance suggest that Original Sin is true and handed down to us through the male gender?

I had a person in a men’s group I was teaching who objected to what I presented on this subject. The objection, I think, conflated the laws and practices regarding property inheritance rights with the doctrine of original sin and being born with a sin nature. It was suggested that only men receive inheritance based on property laws. 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 women received 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 one. Property and substance are essentially the same 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 follows a different law, which is not based on free will. Choice or free will is guided by laws for action, while physical laws are laws of action. Both of these laws govern everything in the universe that God created.

Additionally, the act of procreation, which creates a new human being through natural law, involves the combination of 50% of the chromosomes from the man and 50% from the woman. I know of no scientist or Christian who disputes that fact. That is how we inherit certain physical characteristics from our parents. Regarding the birth of Jesus, it seems very reasonable to believe that God the Father miraculously provided 50% of the chromosomes for Jesus, the man, while Mary supplied the other 50%. Jesus inherited his physical traits from both his Father and his mother, not just his Father.

Property inheritance rights have nothing to do with what we inherit by being born into the human family. To suggest that the laws of property inheritance override the laws of procreation is inappropriate because it ignores the reality of how procreation occurs.

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 correctly understand the objection, we are talking about 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. 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/sin nature, as the cause and source of sin, can’t be actual 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 above 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/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 particular, 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. Not one of the four theories, advanced by the proponents of Original Sin/Sin Nature over the last 1500 years, talks about the curses in Genesis Chapter 3 as the basis on which Original Sin/Sin Nature is built.  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/Sin nature. For a fuller study of this subject, I suggest you purchase the following book. Most 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 and the objections. The following is a direct quote from his book.

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/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 obey God’s commands, then sin is not sin, and we are not blameworthy/culpable and have nothing to repent of.

Original Sin Proof Texts

Next, we will look at the proof texts used in supporting the dogma 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 is confessing his awful guilt for his sins and asking God to create in him a clean heart in verse 10. David is crying out for forgiveness of his sins with a very 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?

• Psalm 58:3 reads, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

We know that babies do not speak from birth. And we know that babies do not lie from birth. It takes months for babies to develop the ability to communicate and speak. This is figurative language and is confirmed by reality.

This Psalm of David is about the righteous judgment of the wicked by a holy God. You will note in verses 10 and 11 that David acknowledges that “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.

Again, in hyperbolic and figurative language, David addresses the guilt of the wicked, and that they have practiced evil all their days, from the commencement of moral agency or the age of accountability. But there can be no guilt for sin if we are born sinners who sin naturally and unavoidably. God will never condemn a person for committing unavoidable sin, but will rightfully condemn us for sin that we do not avoid committing.

“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, per the author 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 bring forth sinful children. Are we to assume that everyone who has ever had a child has been sinning when their child is conceived or born? How many parents have repented of their sins and then given birth to children? Do clean parents bring forth clean children? Must that not be the case if unclean parents bring forth unclean children? Is sin a substance? Is holiness a substance that passes on physically from parent to child? The context of verses 1 and 2 indicates that Job is talking about how brief life is for all men, “he cometh forth as a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.” KJV

Frail and dying parents bring forth children like them in this regard. We are all like a flower that is 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, so says God in Job 42:7.

Recall what Jesus said to those who asked him about a man born with a physical infirmity. His disciples asked Jesus if it was because of this man’s or his parents’ sins. Jesus responded by saying that the reason for his infirmity has nothing to do with his sin or the sin of his parents, but everything to do with the plan of God.

• Romans 5:12,18,19 KJV reads, “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 that is mainly used to support the belief in Original Sin, even though it doesn’t teach all the things they say 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 righteous on 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.

• Eph. 2:3 reads, “And were by nature the children of wrath, even as 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 rather than 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/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.

In summary, if you wonder about the unhealthy and very carnal state of the American Christian Church, look no further than these doctrines and beliefs. Being born with a sinful nature, we come into existence unable to do anything good. This inherited inability is the very best excuse for sin ever devised in the universe. If a person believes that we inherit a sinful nature that we can never conquer, even with God’s help, will they ever make meaningful improvements in their lives? Near impossible.

What we believe determines what we do. If you think you will sin daily in thought, word, and deed, even with the grace of God and a new nature from God, you will never seriously try to stop sinning.

It is physically impossible to be born a sinner because sin is not a substance (liquid, gas, or solid). The Bible teaches that sin is a transgression of the moral law, not a physical law. Sin is an immoral choice. Choice and substance are entirely different. One is voluntary and the other is not. We can’t choose to disregard physical laws, but we can disregard moral laws. It is a moral impossibility to be born a sinner, because sin requires choice and voluntariness.

If sin is a substance that can be inherited like a disease or virus, then goodness, kindness, and love are substances just like sin. But sin, wickedness, goodness, love, and kindness describe the character of a choice or action, not the substance of it. And neither sin nor holiness can be passed on physically or morally by heredity.

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 70:5-6 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.