Are Men Born Sinners? The Myth of Original Sin

My friend and I stood looking down at his tiny newborn baby, lying contentedly in his crib. "Of course," said my friend, "our little Tommy is a sinner."

These words were a continuation of the doctrine my friend had taught earlier in his Sunday school class: a doctrine that is accepted as orthodoxy almost universally in our churches, the doctrine that all of humanity sinned in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam's sin, its guilt, and its curse were imputed to all his descendants, and that all of his descendants are now born with an Adamic sin nature which makes sin unavoidable and makes us "by nature the children of wrath."

What makes this incredible doctrine believable is the fact that there are verses in the Bible which seem to teach it. Psalm 51:5 comes immediately to the mind of the Christian who has been taught to believe in the doctrine of original sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This settles it for the Christian. If the Bible says we were "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin," then it has to be so.

And the above text would teach that men are born sinners if it were meant to be taken literally. But the language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality demand a figurative interpretation of this text.

For example, let's compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21, which says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb.

Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative interpretation of these two texts.

David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms. In fact, in the 51st Psalm, verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin when it says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean." Also, verse eight can be made to teach the doctrine that God breaks the Christian's bones when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven "Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the astonishing doctrine that babies speak from the very moment they are born: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

But who would seriously teach from this last text that babies actually do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages is meant to be understood in a literal sense. They are all figurative expressions. If they were understood literally, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality; for reality teaches us that bones don't rejoice, hyssop doesn't purge sin, babies don't speak as soon as they leave the womb, and an unborn child is not morally depraved.

The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies are born sinners, would, if applied to these passages (or if applied to many other passages in the Bible), allow for every kind of perversion and wild interpretation of God's Word. Look again at the words of Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Did Job, by these words, mean to teach that he and all other men would some day go back into their mother's womb? We know that such a meaning is absurd. But it is just as reasonable to give to Job 1:21 the nonsensical meaning that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb, as it is to give to Psalm 51:5 the nonsensical meaning that David and all other men are born sinners. David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner. He instead was confessing to God the awful guilt and sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language the language of figure and symbol to express that awful guilt and sinfulness.

But if David intended to affirm that he was literally "shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was his Maker:

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13 (Living Bible)

Know ye that the Lord he is God: It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3

Are we to understand from these passages that God fashions men into sinners in their mother's womb? No, we know that God does not create sinners. Yet, upon the supposition that Psalm 51:5 teaches that men are born sinners, these texts could teach nothing else. Who cannot see that the doctrine that men are born sinners charges God with creating sinners? It represents man as being formed a sinner in his mother's womb, when the Bible clearly teaches that God forms man in his mother's womb. It represents man as coming into this world a sinner, when the Bible clearly teaches that God creates all men. It may be objected that God created only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited sin nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under which he would be born with that nature? God, of course. There is no escaping the logical inference that is implicit in the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. It is a blasphemous and slanderous libel on the character of God.

But one might as well reject the Bible out of hand, if he does not want to recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Bible.

Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13, 14

Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? Job 31:15

Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3

I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 6:7

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:26,27

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Eccl. 7:29

This last text not only declares that God has created man, but it also affirms that God created man upright. If man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; and if he is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictories.

But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature. I John 4:3, II John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38.

The doctrine of original sin is false: it slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks man's god-given consciousness of justice, and it flies in the face of the plainest teachings of God's holy Word. The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine. It is a grotesque myth that contradicts the Bible on almost every page. But because good Christians can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" the doctrine of original sin, they are convinced it is true. But good Christians have rejected truth and clung to error in the name of the Bible before.

For instance, Galileo and Copernicus brought to the church the truth that the earth was not the center of the universe, that the sun did not go around the earth but that the earth went around the sun and that the earth rotated on its axis, giving the illusion that the sun was going around the earth.

We all know this to be true now, but did all good Christians believe it then? No, both John Calvin and Martin Luther clung, along with the church, to the error that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth and that the earth stood still.

"Martin Luther called Copernicus 'an upstart astrologer' and a 'fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.' Calvin thundered: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?'"

Both Calvin and Luther were good, well-meaning men, but they still clung to their false views because they could quote Scripture texts to support them. Likewise, there are good, well-meaning Christians today who also erroneously cling to the doctrine of original sin because they can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" it.

It is these texts, that have been taken out of context and misinterpreted to support this false doctrine, that we will examine in the next chapter.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

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

What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14

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 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. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19

If He did not possess this old sin nature, then how would he be able to act as the Perfect Intercessor for man seeking a relationship with a Perfect God? Quite the contrary, insistence upon the essence of Jesus Christ as being different than man, merely develops a long tangled misdirection with ulterior intentions of deception.

Here's another doctrinal question for those who don't believe in an old sin nature.

I've answered all these questions in some detail in this thread. But I believe your questions is sincere, so here goes:

From Post 18, in answer to RnMomof7's question: certainly if there is no original sin someone other than Christ must have lived a sinless life...

So now you base your beliefs on a conjecture. But it is a false one. Adam and Eve, and all the angels were created sinless, and Adam and Eve, and probably 1/3 of the angels sinned. NONE had a sinful nature.

After the fall, man became "physcially" depraved, mortal, and subject to disease and easily inflamed desires in a world also under the curse. If man could not keep from sinning when in perfect health, in paradise, walking daily with God, why do you suppose he would be able to keep from sinning in such an imperfect state. Your assumption is completely baseless.

(Remember, temptation is not sin. After the fall, I believe temptation became much greater than before. I also believe that Jesus sufferred the same temptation, proving that a man could resist it if he chose to. However, Jesus is the only man who ever did resist it, and the only one that ever will.)

From Post #62 showing sin is against nature in answer to: No hank if it was against his nature he would have to work at it..he does not he loves his sin.

Well, that's what you say, but the Bible says:

Prov 13:15 ... the way of transgressors is hard.

And if it were not hard work to sin, why would coming to Jesus be considered rest?

Math. 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

The Bible describes sin as slavery and servitude. Who loves being a slave?

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

If it was our nature to sin, it would be good for us to sin. It is my nature that requires me to eat. It is good for me to eat. It is my nature that requires me to breath. It is good for me to breath. But sin is bad for us, because it is contrary to the nature that God has given us. Everywhere the Bible teaches that sin is contrary to nature.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Sin is always "against" nature.

Rom. 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

So God says, men, by nature, have the law of God written on their hearts. Those who have God's law on their hearts do not hate it. The must choose to reject that law naturally written on their heart. To sin, a man must go against his own nature, the nature God gave him.

1 Cor. 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

The nature we are born with instructs us in righteousness. We have to reject it to sin.

This, mom, is what is so evil about sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, not because their nature makes them sinners, but because they wickedly choose to disobey, when God has made every provision, even in their nature, to prevent them from sinning.

If men were sinners because God made them that way, justice would require God provide a Savior. It is because men sin willing, against the nature God has provided that salvation is by Grace.

The "sinful nature" heresy turns everything on its head. It makes God responsible for sin, not man.

Mom, you believe little children are sinners because they were born that way. Jesus said, "... Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat. 18:3

Finally, Post #96 to show the Jesus had exactly the same kind of nature as all other human beings, which is not a sinful one:

After all if he is EXACTLY like YOU He did not a divine nature..you too COULD have lived sinless had YOU chosen to right?

I did not say he was exactly like you. I said his human nature was exactly like all other human nature, because that is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Jesus was all man and all God. Any other view is considered heresy. Do you disagree with that?

Now, speaking for the moment about his human nature, that was exactly the same as any other human being's nature. If it was not, he was not ALL man.

All Calvinists are very close to holding the heresy that says Jesus was not really a man. But the Bible makes it clear that as a man, he had exactly the same nature we have.

Heb 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Consider:

"For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood.

"he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the SEED OF ABRAHAM. (Oh, yeah, almost forgot, you believe that seed is corrupt, I mean, sinfully. Can't be, else Jesus would not have inherited it.

"in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's in ALL things, including their nature. Of course if it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things. That's what you believe, huh, Mom?

Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jas 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, and could have rightly been translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...."

With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desiress like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin.

The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, and for knowledge Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Was there anything evil about the desires? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this, there was a desired object, there was the knowledge that the object was forbidden (and therefore it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted.

James explains that this is always how temptation works. Nothing has changed. All desires spring from our natures. (We only here refer to the natural passions, not "intellectual" desire based on values and goals. In themselves, these can never alone be the source of temptation, that is, if there is no accompanying desire in the "feeling" sense.)

When the object of those perfectly natural God-given desires are those things which one may rightly enjoy, fulfilling them is not sin, and is in fact their purpose. When the object of those same natural desires is for something forbidden, fulfilling the very same desire becomes sin. It is not the desire that makes it sin, but the object, and the fact that it is forbidden. (Sexual desire within marraige and outside of marraige is a typical example. The very same desire fulfilled within marraige is blessed, outside of marraige is sin.)

It is necessary to make this clear if we are to understand that Jesus was tempted in every way exactly the same as we are. If there is anything about our nature that makes temptation greater or different than it was before the fall, Jesus' nature must also have had this same difference, else he would not have been tempted, "in all points," and "like as we are." Since all desires spring from our natures, and all temptation is the result of desire, and Jesus was tempted in exactly the same way we are (or the whole thing is only a sham), He had to have the same kind of nature we have.

Finally we must examine this verse:

Rom. 5:12 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.

I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrased to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here.

This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature."

On the basis of this view, every human death is proof of the sinful nature that man was born with. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that JESUS DIED.

To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal.

I have not come by the view that there is not a sinful nature lightly. It was Scripture that convinced, and the discovery the doctrine was the invention of Augustine, NOT the Bible. It is a terrible doctrine that makes God the author of sin and prevents men from knowing how wicked they really are. It is one thing to believe you are a sinner because you are born that way and really couldn't help it, it is the truth, you are a sinner because you wickedly chose to be one, and there is not excuse for it at all.

You also asked:

If you are Christian, why do you sin?

Does a Christian sin?

1 John 3:1-10 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

I have tried to provide answers that would be useful to you. I am not trying to convince you. Most Christians believe in a sinful nature, and if you do, you have the comfort of knowing you have a lot of company, at least. I believe they are mistaken. I do not believe it makes them heretics, but I believe they would be much more useful to God if they did not hold the error.

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.