In Defense of the Doctrine of Original Sin

The following was originally posted on Facebook by Chad Hunt, then recently “shared” on Facebook by Chad Johnson, who often does street-preaching here in Louisville, KY:

No one is born a sinner. That's a popular sin justifying LIE.

Jesus Christ cannot create sin. He knitted you in the womb PERFECT.

Looking at Chad Hunt’s Facebook wall, I see that a number of his posts are dedicated to arguing against the doctrine of Original Sin.

When Chad Johnson “shared” this, I responded with mentioning Psalm 51:5 and Ephesians 2:1-3. Chad Johnson replied that the verses do not say that anyone is born a sinner, and that the doctrine of Original Sin is an Augustinian invention.

NOTICE, HOWEVER: the idea that a person is born a sinner (and even conceived a sinner) is EXACTLY what Psalm 51:5 DOES say. Various translations render the verse differently, of course, but notice two of the most popular below:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (KJV)

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)

Psalm 51 is David mourning over his sin and calling out for salvation (or a cleansing from sin and a renewed assurance of salvation). As he considers the root of his sin, he realizes that his sinful state did not originate in his failure concerning Bathsheba and her husband; rather, it extended back even to when he was being “shapen” in his mother’s womb. (As an aside: the idea that David’s personal existence extends back into his mother’s womb is why this Psalm is a key pro-life proof-text.) The fact that he was “sinful at birth” (or even from conception) is the basis for David’s deep realization that what he needed was much more than mere moral reformation and resolve: what he needed was a heart-cleansing that only the LORD Himself could provide (Psalm 51:10).

Ephesians 2:1-3 is likewise on-point in giving explicit backing to the doctrine of Original Sin. NOTICE ESPECIALLY the language from the end of Ephesians 2:3, “we were by nature children under wrath, even as the others were also.” The text does NOT say that ‘we were, due to our own sinful actions, children under wrath.’ Rather, we are children under wrath “BY NATURE.” This is a fundamental difference between the way that Christians view human nature and the way the non-Christian world views human nature. The non-Christian world sees human nature as morally neutral or morally good. But Christians confess that apart from a life-giving work of the Holy Spirit, the NATURAL state, the default for ALL human beings (save Christ Himself) following Adam, is “under wrath.” In Ephesians 2, this is given as the reason for why we are ALL in desperate need of the gift of grace.

So to say that the doctrine of Original Sin began with Augustine is an error. That claim is similar to saying that the doctrine of justification by faith alone began with Luther or that the so-called “extra Calvinisticum” [the teaching that in the incarnation the Son was truly united to, but never fully contained within, human nature] began with Calvin. These theologians gave especially clear explanations of these doctrines, but the doctrines themselves are necessarily contained in Scripture itself.

And the doctrine of Original Sin is a gospel issue, as seen in Romans 5 (and I would urge anyone considering this issue to carefully consider that chapter). Romans 5:12 declares that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Notice the connection between death [both physical and spiritual, as seen in the parallel to eternal life in Romans 5:20-21 and in comparison with the teaching in Ephesians 2:1-3] and sin. This necessary connection between sin and death (with death elsewhere referred to as “the wages of sin,” Rom 6:23) means that sin CANNOT ONLY signify PERSONAL transgressions, as it is obvious that many infants (some even within the womb) are subject to death. For infants, it is a sinful nature, rather than particular sinful choice on their own part, that makes death a possibility.

I say that Romans 5 makes this a gospel issue because of the parallel that the text presents between Adam and Christ. If one denies that the sin of Adam impacts the human race, then (given the line of thought presented in Romans 5) one would also be lead to deny that the righteousness of Christ impacts “the many” who have received God’s grace. Underlying both the bad news of Original Sin and the good news of justification by faith alone is the doctrine of imputation. “Imputation” comes from a word meaning “to apply to one’s account.” In this case, based on the teaching of the verses mentioned above, as well as others, we see that all people naturally have Adam’s sin applied to their account. This natural imputation of Adam’s sin has personal results, in that people all make sinful choices based on their sinful nature. From this perspective, we see that we need another imputation. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, there is another imputation: those who trust in Christ have His righteousness applied to their account in place of their old unrighteous nature and choices. Without this teaching of imputation, we are left with the idea that God looks on us based solely upon our own personal works: and we know (both through the teaching of Scripture and our own hard experience) that our own works are powerless to save.

Motivating Chad Hunt and Chad Johnson’s denial Original Sin is their conviction that this doctrine would make God culpable for human sinfulness. I understand that, from the standpoint of human reasoning, their objection may seem to have some merit. But notice a necessary inconsistency with anyone taking their view. In the physical realm, everyone knows that there are some infants who suffer and die in infancy (and that these realities are at least a possibility for all infants). Does this reality, present in the lives of those who do not seem to be able to make personal choices to sin, make God culpable for suffering and death? If the answer to that last question is “no,” then why should we accept that spiritual suffering and death, present in the earliest stages of life, somehow make God culpable?

But even if we cannot see HOW realities like Original Sin square with the justice and goodness of God, the Bible has a hard-to-accept answer: an answer that is necessary to wrestle with and submit to if we are to grow in faith and knowledge of God. For the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory? (Romans 9:19-23)

We have no answer for all the questions above. We must simply trust God and cast ourselves upon Him, crying out: “God, have mercy on me, a sinner!” (Luke 18:13).