Considering Original Sin, Part 1 (of 2)

 

The doctrine of Original Sin is something that has long been contested in Christendom. Because the Roman Catholic Church stood as a champion of the doctrine might have been a contributing reason for Christians to consider rejecting it wholesale. But Rome did not originate the doctrine: the Bible did.

Upon reading John Geiseler’s Ecclesiastical History, the early centuries of the church demonstrate a constant flux of heresy and apostasy within the professing church. Many doctrines were challenged, including Jesus’ divinity, the Bible’s accuracy/faithful preservation, and even the accusation that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was an evil demiurge. The doctrine of Original Sin was not left unchallenged, either. In both the ancient and modern theological arena, Original Sin is unwelcome in much of Christendom. But popularity or approval doesn’t nullify or justify a doctrine. Scripture does. Sola Scriptura ought to be the battle cry on the lips of every conscientious Christian on planet Earth.

 

I do not commend or endorse Roman Catholicism, or believe everything the Reformation accomplished was necessarily good. Men like Luther and Calvin stood on the shoulders of men such as Wyklyffe and Huss, and leaned heavily on the polluted well of Augustine, patron saint of the Roman Church. Nor is the truth contingent upon either the Roman Catholic Church, or any Reformed Church. Again, Scripture is our guide. So what does the Bible say about Original Sin?

 

First, the actual term, “Original Sin,” does not appear in Scripture. But then again, neither does the term, “Trinity,” yet every genuine Christian should believe this truth to be so, because the Bible teaches it. Like the Trinity, Original Sin is not specifically named, but intrinsically taught throughout the Bible. Before we enter into where it is found, let us define what it means.

 

So, what is Original Sin? It is the doctrine that we have inherited Adam’s sin nature. When Adam, our first father, chose to sin he died spiritually. His sin brought upon him spiritual death, and through him (from whom all the Earth is begotten) we have inherited his nature, 1 Corinthians 15:49. Like a genetic defect, the sin nature is imparted from our original parent to us. Because we are born possessing a sin nature, we are inclined toward evil. Our natural state leans toward selfishness, not selflessness. Lying, stealing, cheating, hurting or killing one another are all sins: symptoms or manifestations of the sin nature we inherited from Adam. David says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” Psalm 51:5. David isn’t referring to the conjugal union of man and wife, which God created prior to man’s fall and was part of all He created and called good. No, David is speaking of the nature imparted from Adam, through his lineage, to all of his descendants.

 

As I am the product of my father, being begotten in his likeness, I bear many character traits that betray my relation to him. Spiritually this is so with our first father. We resemble our ancestor in the fact that we possess a sin nature and act, by that nature, in a manner that is discordant with God’s person and purpose. Desires and urges exist within all of us that compel us to think, speak, and act selfishly, seeking self gratification, even at the cost of hurting others, or harming our conscience. Though repetition dulls the conscience, and when we immerse ourselves in willful sin we look for like company to insulate or justify ourselves, it does not remove the real moral guilt of doing what we know is wrong.

 

The world at large, and American culture in particular, is in the midst of a massive paradigm shift. We are desperately trying to leave behind the antiquated beliefs religion (we are told) has heavily imbibed us with. Guilt and shame are byproducts of religious ideals once used to artificially enforce societal status quos. But mankind has outgrown religion (read in: we have outgrown belief that God is real). We crave emancipation from persecution; but there is no emancipation from the internal conflict of our sin nature, and the sins we choose to commit. Recognizing right and wrong is not a societal creation for the stability of the culture that defines such terms. No, back of right and wrong is the nature of what we are. We are human; but more specifically, we are descendants and inheritors of Adam’s transgression.

 

The Evolutionist looks at human behavior and tells us that selfishness was (and in some cases, they say, still is) a good thing; it kept primitive man alive, so the strongest could pass on their genes to successive generations. Even rape is ascribed to a simple, primitive desire to pass on genetics; a cast off if you will of caveman-like thinking, when preserving the species was apparently a motive for sexual violence. Darwin’s disciples make the sin nature something laudable, a mechanism that preserves human life. It is the exact opposite of what Scripture says of this nature. It is not a vestige of bygone eons, inherited from hominids and cavemen; it is not a reflection of deeply rooted behaviors that formerly preserved life, but are now eschewed by a more enlightened culture. In other words, sin (selfishness, pride, vanity, etc.) is not a vestigial moral organ, now largely defunct. It is moral wickedness chosen in place of what conscience and God inform us the right choice is.

 

The psychologist looks at sin from a mechanical standpoint. Man is an organic machine: a stimulus response robot that can be diagnosed, reprogrammed, and fed psychotropic drugs to alter the brain chemistry that is believed to be the root of man’s “mental” ills. As a proviso, I understand that there are serious and legitimate mental illnesses. Because man possesses a sin nature, we are not only spiritually dead, but physically and mentally deteriorating as time marches on. Genetic flaws, mutations, etc. that occur are passed along, and people suffer for it. But much of what is considered mental illness today is not a mental problem, but a spiritual one. Thoughts are not physical; there is no physical equivalent for multitudes of concepts people talk about every day. If the thoughts we think are not physical, then the being that thinks them isn’t, either. When someone is angry, suicidal, lustful, addicted, etc., these are not mental illnesses; they are spiritual ones. Drugs and therapy can’t reach the heart of the issue. Drugs will alter brain chemistry, which can impair the brain’s ability to function correctly. If the brain is the computer the spirit employs to utilize the body we dwell in, it can be dangerously detrimental. Psychology wants to reprogram human thinking to make us better. But we aren’t machines, and their myriad scores of theories (often times conflicting even with each other) fail to address the real issue. Man is a sinner by birth and choice, and many mental illnesses are the ramification of choices made that come back to harm us because sin always has consequences. Choices are real things, and always lead to irreversible outcomes, good or bad. Rather than attempting to alleviate human accountability (to justify sin and make everyone a victim of another’s choices), it needs to be stated that something in us compels us to behave discordantly with each other, and toward God.

 

Finally, the Bible looks at sin and says that sin is a wrong choice that distorts a good thing. This is an oversimplification, but we’ll begin here. To commit sin is to choose to do something morally wrong; but to know that, mankind needs to comprehend and define objective moral uprightness. Solomon writes, “Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes,” Ecclesiastes 7:29. In the beginning God made man in His own image. Man was a moral agent, with a free will to make genuine choices. This meant that while innocent, our first parents were not perfect; they were fully capable of making a choice unworthy of a holy God. They had open communion with the Lord, but were not themselves gods.

 

The choice Eve made was honest beguilement, Genesis 3:13, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14. The decision Adam made, though still in innocence, was one of abandonment of God’s simple instruction in favor of human conjecture, Genesis 3:12, 1 Timothy 2:14. Paul informs us that Adam, in his innocence, was not deceived by Satan’s beguilement. Eve’s excuse was being deceived; Adam’s excuse was to blame Eve. The act of disobedience, the decision to obey the voice of his wife over the voice of his Creator was what led to spiritual death and estrangement from God. The fruit of the tree had nothing to do with the scenario. Had God not given them a provisional rule regarding it, then they would have been guiltless, Romans 5:12, 13.

 

There are many questions that can be inferred from what occurred in Eden. Why did God make man merely innocent and not perfect? Why did He give them such a rule? Why did He permit Adam and Eve to be tempted, knowing they would fall? We know that God is all wise, and His ways are perfect. God saw the whole of time as one unit, the beginning from the end, and knew how all human life would play out. We are learning in Hebrews how God does not give aid to angels, but to humanity. The sons of men are offered redemption in Christ, who was made in our likeness, as at first mankind was made in God’s likeness. When we lost that image, Jesus Christ came to this earth to restore it, to redeem us from sin, and bring back Adam’s progeny from the certainty of spiritual death.