“Original Sin”?
What is meant by the term ’Original Sin’? “The hereditary, sinful corruption of our nature as derived from Adam” (Hodge p.240).
Although the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ was formulated by Ireneus of Lyon and later by Cyprian of Carthage, it was Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) who coalesced their teachings with those of Roman, Platonic, philosophical and intellectual ideas (Britannica.com). Augustine was known for his licentious lifestyle but declared himself celebrate prior to his conversion. Augustine exhibits typical post-conversion guilt. When an alcoholic, for example stops drinking, he has a complete intolerance towards anyone who drinks. Augustine shows the same abhorrence towards any form of sexual activity. He decided that a truly religious person, in order to be a servant of God, must practice sexual abstinence. This stance was to be promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church and ratified at the Council of Trent where it was considered that the act of sexual intercourse was of itself a sinful act.
The ideas and teachings of Augustine were to have a significant influence upon later theologians, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther.
“She said, ‘No one, Master.’ And Yahusha said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’” (John 8:11). A person has the Yahuah-given free choice whether to sin or not. It is my belief that a person does not have sin per se just because of their relationship with Adam, sometimes called ‘Original Sin’. I do believe that Adam’s original disobedience (Gen. 3:1-24) causes the effects of sin to enter the world. Take, for example, an aeroplane. sitting on the runway; it has all the capabilities to fly. However, until power is derived from its engines, it will never take off. Similarly, with Adam, he had the capability to die (was not created immortal) but there was no means by which death could be manifest. However, once sin became manifest in the world through disobedience, thereby the means of death entered the world.
Adam, as the proto-type Man, was made with free-will. There were no people before him to impart ‘Original Sin’, indicating that Man is capable of sinning without recourse to any inherent, imputed sin. Sin abounds because it is (temporarily) pleasing to the flesh. If it were not so, the Fruit would not have attracted Chavah and Adam. Yahuah made Adam without sin but with free-will to choose between good and evil, yet he chose the latter. It is this universal propensity to sin, that Man cannot withstand, and thus all sin. Likewise, each and every person is conceived and born without sin, but has the Yahuwah-given right to choose between states. When a person eventually succumbs to sin’s temptation, there is a ‘personal Fall’ after which the flesh has ascendency over the spirit.
If after Adam’s fall, every person was subject to ‘Original Sin’ and the cause of everyone sinning, and if the Atoning Blood washes away sin in order for Man to be made a new creature, how is it possible for Man to sin after salvation? “For the good which I desire, I do not do; but the evil which I do not desire, that I practice. But if what I do not desire, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me… What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:19-24). The Apostle was clearly re-generated, yet he is conscience of the ever-present tension between wanting to and not
(1)
wanting to sin. This cannot be due to ‘Original Sin’ still being active in his flesh, otherwise it would mean that the Blood of the Messiah is not strong enough to remove all sin, and thus heaven would be full of ‘Original Sinners’ which is a ridiculous suggestion. Therefore, even after salvation, sin has a grip on the flesh and it is this sin that Adam succumbed to at the Fall, and it is this sin that all fail to withstand.
“To Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to your wife’s voice, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground for your sake. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns also and thistles will it bring forth to you; and you will eat the herb of the field. By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.’” (Gen. 3:17-19a). This is the judgement upon Adam (and his male descendants).
It is vitally important to note that Yahuah cursed the ground and from this Adam (and his descendants) had to toil in order to eat. Man’s survival now was down to his works and not to the provision of Yahuah. There is no indication of the ‘curse’ of all descendants (male and female) having sin imputed upon them due to Adam’s sin. It is incredulous to believe that Yahuah considered having to labour to eat, far outweighs the imparting of ‘Original Sin’ to every single person to be conceived, as though this was of much lesser eternal significance. This is more so, given that in future generations, because of wealth and status, it was possible to be fed with a minimal amount of effort. Not a single person, whether rich or poor, high-born or humble can escape the death sentence so pronounced upon Man.
“To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” (Gen. 3:16). This implies that child-birth would initially involve some pain. However, this would have been the physical pain of delivery. I believe that the increase in pain is not of a physical nature, but of a psychological/emotional pain. Chavah now realised that with the empowering of sin and the introduction of its consequence, death would be visited upon each and every baby born. She would experience this first-hand with the death of her son, Hevel (cf Gen. 4:25).
It was to Adam that Yahuah gave the prohibition not to eat the Fruit, “Yahuah `Elohiym commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die.’” (Gen. 2:16,17).
Ultimately, only Adam sinned. The Serpent tempted the Woman who in turn tempted the man, but Adam should have at least refused to eat, if not to prevent Chavah from taking the Fruit. There was no compulsion for Adam (and thus all Mankind) to sin and he had the free-will choice whether to obey or disobey Yahuah’s commandments.
“…For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Gen. 3:19b). Death was introduced but with no apparent immediate affect taking place. The promises of Yahuah always happen. Yahuah promised that Mankind would die if Adam ate of that Fruit. There was no time schedule mentioned but the clock started ticking on Adam.
“And the dust returns to the land as it was, And the spirit returns to `Elohiym who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7). Death can be defined as separation: spiritual death as being the separation of man from Yahuah; physical death as being the separation of the material body from the immaterial soul and spirit (Hoyt 1986).
(2)
“Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom. 5:12). ‘Passed’ #G1330 διέρχομαι dee-er-khoh-my is derived from #G1223 διά dee-ah 1)c)2 by means of and #G2064 ἔρχομαι er-khoh-my 2)a) to come into being. My belief is that as sin was introduced into the world, it made it possible for man to sin. It does not mean that sin itself was passed down to each and every man as in the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’.
It is important to note Sha`ul wrote that it was death and not sin that was passed down and death entered the world due to the sin of Adam.
“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15). The reference to the High Priest is of the Master Yahusha HaMashiach. ‘All’ points #G3956 πᾶς pass – each, every, any, all. This shows that the Master had in Him every attribute that was in Man, and Man had every attribute that was in the Master. If the Master was capable of sinning, so was Man. However, this verse tells us that the Master had no sin in Him so could not have been subject to ‘Original Sin’. Therefore, to be our perfect High Priest, Man also could not be subject to ‘Original Sin’. It is true that Man’s very nature made it so easy to sin that it was inevitable that he would succumb. Likewise, the Master’s very humanity made it very easy for Him to sin yet He did not succumb to any temptation.
It could be said that because the Master was conceived by HaRuakh and not by Man, He was without sin. Even so, the Master had to be like Man in all aspects.
“Then Yahusha was led up by HaRuakh into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” (Matt. 4:1). Here is the beginning of the Master’s temptation. This means that:
- there must have been a possibility of the Master having a choice to sin or not.
- what haSatan had to offer, it was able to deliver on its promise.
If these were not true, then it could not be classed as temptation and Yahusha could not be our Redeemer as He would not have full understanding of the effect of the constant battle with temptation. Likewise, the Adversary would have a justifiable claim that the Master would have had a ‘head start’ over Man. The Master was starting from a position of sinLESSness so sin had no hold over Him from birth. Unlike Man who was starting life from the position of sinFULness and sin had Man in its grip from conception. As haSatan never levied such an accusation, it must be because the Master and Man started from the same position.
If the Master had no sin (original or committed) then Man must also start from having no sin.
The Adversary can call ‘foul’ over the disadvantage Man has, being handicapped by ‘Original Sin’. It could be said that the Master, not being burdened by ‘Original Sin’ would have found it much easier to live a life without succumbing to sin, than Man who starts life under this massive impediment.
(3)
“For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Yahusha the Messiah.” (Rom. 5:17).
“So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life.” (Rom. 5:18).
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:19).
Sin came into the world by the disobedience to Yahuah’s commandments. In Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden), all was right between Yahuah `Elohiym and Man, until Man disobeyed Yahuah. The verses above have been intentionally singled out and not left as one larger passage to draw attention to the parallel grammatical construction of each verse.
Each verse is divided in to two parts; the second being the shadow of the first. What happens in the second must be mirrored in the first. For a single sentence to be treated otherwise, contravenes basic exegesis practice and sound grammatical sense. There is no indication that these verses are proverbial, allegorical or poetic in structure, but are to be taken literally.
In fact, to take it as anything other, would do violence, in an exegetical meaning, that is, to force a connotation in order to fulfil a doctrine or ‘Tradition of the (Early Church) Fathers’.
Consider that Adam’s sin causes his descendants to have ‘Original Sin’ automatically imputed to everyone. This would require the Messiah’s righteousness to automatically imputed to everyone. This is obviously not the case, as repentance, faith and confession are required to be saved. If this was so, it would mean that Adam’s sin was much more powerful than the Messiah’s righteousness, as Man had to apply ‘works’ in order to be saved. Again, this is obviously incorrect, bordering on blasphemous.
Now consider that Adam’s sin was not automatically imputed to his descendants, but required Man to choose from free-will, to sin. The second part of the sentence would require Man to choose from free-will, to repent, have faith and confess in order to be saved, “that if you will confess with your mouth the Master Yahusha, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom. 10:9,1 0).
Rom. 5:19 is the most significant of the three verses, in that it explains clearly what the form of trespass took place. Adam wilfully disobeyed Yahuah’s explicit commandment not to eat the Fruit. The work of the Master (obedience) has made it possible for everyone to be righteous but it does not follow that once the Master’s work was completed at Gulgolta, everyone afterwards automatically became righteous. Conversely, Adam’s work (disobedience) made it possible for everyone to sin but it cannot follow that everyone automatically is a sinner.
“Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Master promised to those who love Him.” (Jam. 1:12). “Because you kept my command to endure, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, which is to come on the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” (Rev. 3:10). “I have told you these things, that in me you may have shalom. In the world you have oppression; but cheer up! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33). If the Master was born sinless, then He did not have to overcome sin in His life but only had to overcome temptation. However, if there was such a thing as ‘Original Sin’, Man had to overcome both sin and temptation. If this was so, the Master could not have been the Saviour of Mankind.
(4)
“But if we walk in the light, as He is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Yahusha the Messiah, His Son, cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7). At the moment of salvation, all a person’s past sins have been wiped away, and provision made for all present and future sins to be similarly dealt with. In the word ‘all’ must, therefore, include a person’s ‘Original Sin’. How then can a child, born of a righteous couple, inherit sin from the parents? “you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I, Yahuah, your `Elohiym, am a jealous `Elohiym, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me;” (Deut. 5:9). It can be seen from this verse that a parent’s sin can be passed down, but only on those who do not love Yahuah, “Whoever believes that Yahusha is the Messiah is born of `Eloakh. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of Him. By this we know that we love the children of `Eloakh, when we love `Eloakh and keep His commandments.” (1 John 5:2, 3); “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).
“Adam lived one hundred thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Shet.” (Gen. 5:3). This verse is often quoted to support ‘Original Sin’ in that Shet was born in the fallen likeness of Adam. However, this interpretation raises the question as to why only Shet was mentioned and not all of Adam’s children. “`Elohiym said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’” (Gen. 1:26a). Shet was one of the lineage from which the Master was to be born, “Yahusha Himself…the son of Enosh, the son of Shet, the son of Adam, the son of `Eloakh.” (Luke 3:23-38) and it may be possible that attention was drawn to the fact that, even after the fall, Man retained the divine image.
#H6754 *1923a צֶלֶם tse-lem image is the spiritual, intellectual and moral representation of Yahuah `Elohiym and also can be considered as spirit, soul and body. #H1823 *437a דְּמוּת de-mooth likeness is a less defined, more abstract representation. Although Man was made in the image of Yahuah `Elohiym, Yahuah uses דְּמוּת de-mooth to limit the exactness. Likewise, this would have Shet being born after Adam’s image (spirit, soul and body) but not an exact copy.
“Yahuah `Elohiym made coats of skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them. Yahuah `Elohiym said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’” (Gen. 3:21, 22a). #H3801 כֻּתֹּנֶת *1058 keth-oh-neth coat. This can be shown to indicate that the coat was a ‘paving of the way for what is to be written’ (Mathews). It is my belief that at the time of Yahuah `Elohiym’s killing the animal to cover Adam and Chavah’s nakedness, they were instructed as to the full meaning of the sacrificial slaying of the animal. They would look ahead, in faith, to the giving of the Torah (Written Law) that itself looks forward, in faith, to the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah Yahusha.
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. In sin my mother conceived me.” (Psa. 51:5). Although this is a natural Yahuah-given part of life, it is considered as the proof text that ‘Original Sin’ is the Yahuah-given condition of every foetus.
(5)
If, in the very act of procreation, Man was considered as to sin, then this again would render Yahuah as hypercritical and perverse. “`Elohiym blessed them. `Elohiym said to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply…’” (Gen. 1:28a), Man having no other choice but to sin in order to have children.
Psa. 51:5 is very contentious in that there are some traditional beliefs that state Dawid’s mother, was not Yishai’s (Jesse’s) wife and that Dawid’s father and mother were not married (adulterous lovers, close family, patron and harlot or result of rape). This is strengthened by the belief that Yahuah never commands a person to sin. Yahuah never commanded Shimon Kefa to sin in Acts 10:13; 11:7 as it was not about food cleanliness but of the spiritual condition of a Gentile.
Psa. 51:1-7 (1-5)a (Most Bibles do not have the first line as a part of the Psalm proper).
1(0) For the leader. A psalm of David, 2(0) when Natan came to him after his affair with Bat-Sheva.
3(1)Yahuah, in your grace, have mercy on me: in your great compassion, blot out my crimes.
4(2) Wash me completely from my guilt, and cleanse me from my sin.
5(3) For I know my crimes, my sin confronts me all the time.
6(4) Against you, you only have I sinned and done what is evil from your perspective;
so that you are right in accusing me and justified in passing sentence.
7a(5a) True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me. (Stern CJB).
Each verse has clear poetic parallelism as the first part of the verse is repeated in the second part.
The KJV states that “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” If this is to be taken literally then either Yahuah has called His first commandment to Man (“And Yahuah blessed them, and Yahuah said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:” [Gen. 1:28a]) a sinful act.
חוּל #H2342 khool pained, travailed, bring forth indicating the process of labour and birth, not conception. It was not until the baby was born that it became capable of sinning. It could be said that from the moment of conception a person will inevitably fall to temptation and sin after birth, but not that the person has inherited ‘Original Sin’ from Adam via their parents. Likewise, it could also be said that from the moment of birth, the person’s life span was set and that he would inevitably die.
“Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:5). Although it takes a physical act to enable conception, this is, in fact, an act of Yahuah.
(6)
Dawid was in a state of repentance over the double sin of having Uriyah killed and taking Bat-Sheva as one of his wives. It may be that Dawid was acknowledging that from the moment of conception, Yahuah knew of Dawid’s future sin(s) (and also all ours) rather than that he was a subject to sin because of his humanity and not to the influence of sin on a susceptible human.
“This is the law of him who has a discharge, and of him who has an emission of semen, so that he is unclean thereby: and of her who has her period, and of a man or woman who has a discharge, and of him who lies with her who is unclean.” (Lev. 15:32, 33). When a man has a body discharge, or a woman has her monthly period, they become unclean until the prescribed protocol has been completed. At the end of their isolation on the eighth day, both man and woman must, “…take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and bring them to the Priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. The Priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the Priest shall make atonement for him (her) before Yahuah for the uncleanness of his (her) discharge.” (Lev. 15:14, 15 (29, 30)).
These laws of bodily discharge are often quoted as being a type of sin. In spite of it being a natural condition of life, it is said to prove that, although Man was first made in the image of Yahuah `Elohiym, there was inherent uncleanness or sin in Man. This indicates that Yahuah made Man with inherent sin. This is in contradiction of, “`Elohiym said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and…’ `Elohiym saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” (Gen. 1:26a, 31). This has been quoted as further proof that Man was capable of passing down inherent sin, but Yahuah would not and could not make Man with this innate characteristic.
This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the Priest…The Priest shall take one of the male lambs, and offer him for a trespass offering, with the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before Yahuah…The Priest shall take one of the male lambs, and offer him for a trespass offering, with the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before Yahuah…On the eighth day he shall bring them for his cleansing to the Priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, before Yahuah. (Lev. 14:2-32).
צָרַע #H6879 tsa-rare (spiritual) leper. There are many similarities between the cleansing for bodily discharges and the tsa-rare. This leprosy is not the physical Hanson’s Disease but the outcome of spiritual rebellion and, as such, requires Yahuah to bring chastisement in order to bring the tsa-rare to repentance. This involves a guilt offering and bathing (inferred in the woman’s case) and being declared clean by the Priest on the eighth day. In the case of the tsa-rare, a much more rigorous testing and cleansing ritual is required because it was a rebellious act and not a natural Yahuah-given act. This spiritual leprosy is also likened to sin in everyone’s life.
Therefore, those who cite the Law of Bodily Discharges and the Law of the Tsa-rare aim to show that both ‘Original Sin’ and rebellion are to be considered the same as the cleansing protocols are similar, involving guilt offerings.
However, I would suggest that the Law of Bodily Discharges only strengthen the argument against ‘Original Sin’. Unless there is a medical reason, the male and female discharges do not occur straight after birth. It is not until the onset of puberty that these occur. This usually takes place around the time of the Jewish Bar or Bat Mitzvah, when a person attains the age of accountability. Similarly, the tsa-rareis not born so, but is a result of living a rebellious life-style.
(7)
“but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6). If a child has ‘Original Sin’, then this warning of the Master Yahshua does not make sense. The child will already be in sin, so such a severe warning for someone who leads the child astray is either levelled at Yahuah for making the child with ‘Original Sin’ or the one who does the leading is only adding onto the sin, not the more severely criticised cause of it.
Although the Bar (and Bat) Mitzvah is a non-Biblical concept, it was one that the Master Yahusha probably partook and was recorded in Luke 2:46-50. It does, however, indicate that historically Judaism accepted the concept of an age of accountability. This age of around twelve to thirteen years old, is when a young person becomes accountable under the Torah. I believe that the age of accountability for the knowledge of sin is lower.
“Let them (the wicked) be blotted out of the book of life, And not be written with the righteous.” (Psa. 69:28). It is my belief that upon conception, every person is entered in to the Lamb’s Book of Life. Until a person’s final breath, the name remains. If a person dies in a state of un-repentance their name is blotted out. However, if a person has repented and called upon the Messiah to be saved then their name will remain in the Book. This will also take into account the status of a child that has died at an early age, ante or post natal or a person that has some form of learning disability. The age of accountability will depend upon three factors:
- The child’s access to sound teaching (Godly parents & grand-parents, youth church attendance, school);
b. The child’s ability to understand the teaching;
c. The child’s ‘innocence’ being corrupted by others.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of HaRuakh is spirit.” (John 3:6). This verse is also often cited as evidence for ‘Original Sin’, as a child of fallen parents produce a fallen baby, deriving from a fallen corrupt nature. However, what is the status of a baby from regenerated, righteous parents?
It has been said that all people, including infants, are in need of salvation. If infants are in need of a Saviour, it follows that infants must be sinners. This is a universally accepted doctrine of the Bible. (Hodge p.245). The argument is furthered when it is considered that Scripture often infers that children are to be included with their parents. However, there is no Scripture that calls directly or indirectly for the specific salvation of infants.
“Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of discipline drives it far from him.” (Prov. 22:15).נַעַר #H5288 na-air – child. This and several other Bible verses are cited as showing that a baby was born with sin. This is based upon, “She opened it, and saw the child, and, behold, the baby cried. She had compassion on him, and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children.’” (Exod. 2:6). Here, נַעַר #H5288 na-air is translated baby. By comparing this verse with others, it is wrongly asserted that נַעַר na-air can mean baby in all other verses. However, it is only in Exod. 2:6 that Strong translates נַעַר #H5288 na-air. Even so, Laird Harris et al (p. 586) states that it can be any boy from a baby up to marriageable age. It is wrong, therefore, to cite any verse using נַעַר #H5288 na-air in order to prove ‘Original Sin’.
(8)
“Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil… I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore, choose life, that you may live, you and your seed,” (Deut. 30:15, 19). Again, if Man is born with ‘Original Sin’ there would be no forceful argument to choose either to do good or bad, as the ‘Original Sin’ has already condemned the person.
The physical circumcision of Abraham is said to be a seal of the righteousness of faith. The entrance into the covenant of promise, secured righteousness by faith (Hodge p.247). It followed on that physical circumcision has a spiritual implication and signifies inward purification. This seems to mirror the doctrine of infant baptism, entering into the Church. “He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed.” (Gen. 17:12). As circumcision must take place, by divine decree on the eighth day, it is assumed that if an infant requires circumcision, it must require salvation. There is nowhere in Scripture that states physical circumcision can secure salvation, and is carried out by the parents in order to enter the baby into the nationhood of Yisra`el. Nevertheless, circumcision is only required for male babies, so calls into question that girl babies do not need salvation.
The argument from the universality of death (Hodge p. 248), states that death is a penal condition and thus everyone who dies does so because of them being subject to sin. Therefore, as infants die, they must be sinners. This does not account for born-again Believers. They do not have sin in their lives, but still they die. Animals die, without being subject to sin, but as a consequence of sin and its attendant death, entering into the world.
“I write to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, little children, because you know the Father.” (1 John 2:13). This verse has been quoted to allay fears that unborn foetuses and babies are consigned to eternal damnation. This is on the strength that the third part of this verse is addressed to these people. On the literal reading of this, it would not be possible for Yochanan’s letter to be fully understood. If this was the case, the ‘child’ would surely have knowledge of Good and Evil. Yochanan frequently refers to his audience as ‘children (1 John 2:1, 18; 1 John 3:1,2), and the reason behind the writing of this letter being to counter the false doctrines springing up, “These things I have written to you concerning those who would lead you astray.” (1 John 2:26).
“You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience;” (Eph. 2:1, 2). All who are born are influenced by world, either within the family or their community and by traditions, culture or advertising (Lloyd-Jones p. 84).
“in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Messiah, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.” (2 Cor. 4:4).
(9)
‘Proofs’ of doctrine of Original Sin
Argument from the universality of sin (Hodge p.231): – that the universality of the sinful condition is proof that all Men have sinned. The following Bible verses are quoted as offering evidence that this is so, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;” (Rom. 3:23) (cf 1 Kgs. 8:46; Ecc. 7:20; Isa. 53:6; Psa. 130:3; 143:2; 1 John 1:8). There is no debate against the fact that all Men have sinned. However, the problem arises when this universality is also attributed to babies, unborn and born and those who are not capable of making an informed decision.
Argument from the entire sinfulness of Man (Hodge p.233): – that the entire Man, body soul and spirit are subject to sin and is in total depravity, having the absence of holiness. This is displayed by the fruit of the sins of the flesh, heart, tongue and irreligion, especially in the evil exhibited by the universal rejection of the Messiah, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” (John 1:11). Of this argument, there is no disagreement, but that it does not equate with ‘Original Sin’.
Argument from the sinfulness of Man incorrigible (Hodge p.235): – Man is subject to a controlling power that renders Man personally incurable of a deadly malady. Again, there is no disagreement that Man is incapable of personally rescuing himself, “Yahuah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the world, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5 cf Job 15:14-16; Ecc. 9:3).
Argument from the experience of God’s people (Hodge p.236): – it is clearly obvious that an unregenerated soul cannot recognise its total depravity, and thus in need of a Saviour. In stating God’s people, would suggest that the person was regenerated and already subject to the enlightenment of HaRuakh, having recognised the necessity of a Saviour. Again, this does not address the subject of ‘Original Sin’.
Argument from the early manifestation of sin (Hodge p.237): – a child, at a very early age, exhibits a sinful trait that soon blossoms into full blown sin. This is the only rational solution of the unquestionable fact of the deep, universal expression of the sinfulness of Man of every age, class, and every part of the world. “The wicked go astray from the womb. They are wayward as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” (Psa. 58:4(3) cf Job 11:12; Prov. 22:15). Although this is cited as a proof text for ‘Original Sin’, it does not take into account the unborn child. Also, there is, again, no disagreement here. As soon as a baby is born (indeed from the moment of conception), the child is subjected to death and will eventually succumb to both sin and death. In this verse, it is impossible for a new-born baby to utter lies, indicating that this was a progressive process as the child develops.
Argument from the common consent of Christians (Hodge p.249): – the Church by the historical acceptance of doctrine, has authority as teacher of the Word of God. As there is only one true Church, and one faith, it must follow that the universal acceptance of doctrine must be proof that HaRuakh must have revealed the veracity of the doctrine through the Church (leaders). However, this places the Church leadership on the same footing as HaRuakh. This is obviously in error when Church doctrine contravenes the Word of God. For example, the Church has decided that the Shabbat should be changed to the first day of the week, “but the seventh day is a Shabbat to Yahuah your `Elohiym…” (Exod. 20:10a).
(10)
Argument from the justice of God (Hodge p.252): – whatever God does must be right, therefore, as He permits Man to be born into sin, this must just and consistent with His sovereign will. In refuting the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, it must be to deny God Himself. This assumes that Yahuah is the Author of the spirit of Man but not his natural disposition. This spirit is not sinful which surmises that the soul and flesh are. Yet, we are told that Yahuah is our Maker, body, soul and spirit.
All the natural traits of Man, moral, social, physical and mental are all propagated from generation down to generation and so, therefore is the propensity to sin. Augustianism teaches that the whole Man (body, soul and spirit) is affected by the corruption of our nature derived from our parents.
Witness of early Church Fathers (Bjorkbloggen.com)
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 C.E.) – that a wicked person was such because of their own works and not by inherited nature.
Justin Martyr (c. 110-165 C.E.) – that all men having been made equal to choose good or evil. To counter otherwise is to deny that God exists or that He delights is creating evil, for Man was born cogent and thoughtful.
He also stated that a father cannot be held responsible for the sins of the son, and vice versa, for everyone is responsible for their own sin.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120-200 C.E.) – that if a man was made good, he should not deserve any praise, for God made them so. Conversely, if a man was made evil they should not be condemned, for so God made them. However, all men were made of the same nature so that they can choose to do good or evil.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 C.E.) – no punishments are just if the soul has not the power of choosing or abstaining, if evil is involuntary.
Origen (c. 185-253) – it is not the nature in us that is the cause of evil, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.
Cyprian (c. 200-250) – in the doctrine of the liberty of choice, hequoted, “Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil… I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed;” (Deut. 30:15, 19).
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 312-386) – that before it can into this world, your soul committed no sin, but came into the world unblemished, and being here, sin by our own choice.
All these early Church Fathers all pre-date Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430 C.E.). However, it was not until Augustine that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ became a foundational part of the Western Christian (nascent Roman Catholic) Church.
(11)
References and Credits
In using these references, it is in no way agreeing to or condoning the theological viewpoint of the authors.
Hodge C. (1873) Systematic Theology, Vol II,Thomas Nelson & Sons, London.
Hoyt H.A. (1986) The End Times, BMH Books, Winona Lake, IN.
Laird Harris R. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody, Chicago, IL.
Archer G.L. &
Waltke B.K. (1980)
Lloyd-Jones D.M. The Christian Warfare, An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10-13,
(1976) The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh,
Strong J. (1994) Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, World Bible Publishers Inc., Madison.
Strong J. (1996) The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
KJV Outside of the United Kingdom, the KJV is in the public domain. Within the United Kingdom, the rights to the KJV are vested in the Crown. This Bible is printed and published by Cambridge University Press, the Queen’s royal printer, under royal letters patent. The text commonly available now is actually that of the 1769 revision, not that of 1611.
https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-original-sin/?msockid=180870fc2a52609339f765d26b756110
https://britannica.com/biography/saint-augustine/life-retold
U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107
17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(12)
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
First Generation Assembly 