Disortation on original sin. Sandy, last name unknown PDF Print E-mail

 

The False Doctrine of Original Sin Refuted Scripturally

 

 

The False Doctrine of Original Sin Simplified

The doctrine of Original Sin basically boils down to this:

  1. I have a sinful nature by birth.

  2. I have "inherited" this sinful nature from Adam.

  3. This sinful nature is going to make me sin, or is a causative something back of the will.

  4. I am unable to keep the requirements of God's Law.

  5. God is going to condemn me to Hell for having this sinful nature.

If I have inherited this sinful nature from Adam, how is this sinful nature passed on to me? What part of me is it, in which this sinful nature is passed on? In what part of my being does this sinful nature reside? Sin has to do with choice, not something you inherit. No one inherits sin or a sinful nature. How can God condemn you for something in which you had no choice?

All Scriptures quoted will be from the King James Bible.   Hopefully, when we are through, you will understand the truth and be able to discern the error of this teaching. I will go through different doctrines that are affected by the doctrine of Original Sin and I will compare it with Scripture, as written, without adding words to fit a particular denominational, theological teaching. Should you disagree with me, I welcome your comments, but your conclusions must agree with Scripture rather than based on experience or a particular brand of theology. I would also ask that you pay close attention to what you read and take it at face value. In other words, please do not assume or read more into what is written that I haven't said. In other words, try not to jump to conclusions. I have noticed in the past that many assumptions and decisions are made before any serious searching of the Scriptures to see whether these things be so.

The following is a list of Scriptures that are quoted to try and prove this false doctrine. We shall look at each one in their context.

 

Scripture #1

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

This one verse is taken out of context to prove that all babies are born sinful. Notice the words, "go astray from birth" not that they were born that way. Also notice the RIGHTEOUS in verse 10 who do not go astray. Are they included with those who go astray from birth?

Let's look at the context of the whole Psalm (vss. 1-11)

    "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD. Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the 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."

 

Notice he is not addressing children, but ADULTS, "O congregation.....O ye sons of men?" He also says, "Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth." He is speaking to adults about their heart and their violence. He's not accusing infants of being violent.

    "The wicked are estranged from the womb"

I asked a preacher to tell me what baby he has known that as soon as it was born spoke lies. He could not give me an answer. The best he could do was say that a baby messing his diaper is an act of sin. This is from a grown man, a preacher! Another preacher said that sometimes a baby cries for nothing and that is considered sin. So we are to believe a baby knows the difference between a lie and a truth and therefore committing a willful sin?

    "Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth:"

It says that the wicked who go astray from the womb should have their teeth broken out. How many infants are born with teeth in their mouth? If this is talking about babies, was there ever a time when you sincerely prayed for God to knock out the teeth of babies and break them into pieces?

 

This Psalm is not talking about God taking vengeance on babies. It's about God taking vengeance on the wicked who have done nothing but engaged themselves in violence and bloodshed. Who are the wicked? The wicked are those who forsake God's law.

 

When the Psalmist says, "O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies," he is simply using a language of description to describe the longevity of the sins of these wicked individuals. It's not a statement about his nature at the time of conception or birth, but about the way he's lived his life.

 

Scripture #2

    "Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." -Isa. 48:8

 

Here we are to believe that babies are already transgressors from the womb.

If we look at the context we can deduct that the "womb" is Egypt; however, the majority of Christendom use this verse to teach that babies are born sinners, but we'll look and see what the passage says beginning in verse 1.

    "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness."

According to the verse above, to whom is this addressed? Is it addressed to infants or to the house of Jacob, which is called Israel?

It goes on to say,

    2 For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name. 3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. 4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. 6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 7 They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them. 8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. 9 ¶ For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. 10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. 11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. 12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. 13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 ¶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea: 19 Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me. 20 Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The LORD hath redeemed his servant Jacob. 21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out. 22 There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.

 

If you read this through, you will note that this whole passage is about God's foreknowledge about Israel. Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

 

God prophesied and knew how Israel would act based on his foreknowledge of them. They were an obstinate people. This is God dealing with Israel, whom he chose out of Egypt. God chose them in the furnace of affliction and refined them there. Egypt is known as the furnace of affliction (v. 10). He called them, the house of Jacob, a transgressor from the womb prophetically, with his foreknowledge, because he knows the end from the beginning. God predicted that they would deal treacherously and live in sin. Note that God did not say they were transgressors before they were born. ".... for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." God "called" them a transgressor from the womb. It was not a "title" God attached to infants, but it was a title attached to Israel in lieu of what he knew they would become.

 

Scripture #3

     "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9

Note how verses are pulled out of thin air and extracted from its context to prove what the Scriptures do not teach.

In the Bible it talks about a pure heart, a clean heart, hardened heart, willing heart, trembling heart, glad heart, perfect heart,"double heart," wicked heart, sound heart, merry heart, proud heart, heavy heart, deceived heart, an evil heart, stony heart, true heart, and a new heart. And in Jeremiah 17:9 it speaks of a deceitful heart. What does the passage mean, "the heart is deceitful?" It simply means that the heart will say one thing and feel another, or profess one thing and turning its affections in another direction.

Again, context.

 

If we look at the context and read the verse following it, God tells us what he means by the deceitful heart. He said, "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Scripture says it's a man's ways, it is the "fruit of his DOINGS." There is nothing in Scripture that says it was the state of his being.

 

Scripture #4

    "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." - Gen. 6:5

The choice for this verse must surely be out of desperation. This verse says nothing about being born in sin.

Note "that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" is not referring to babies. Please read the context of the passage. What God said preceded the flood. These people lived in wickedness and the wickedness was great. God told Noah, who was not wicked, whose heart was not continuously evil, that he would destroy the earth with a flood to kill everyone on the face of the earth. This great wickedness was not the result of babies, but something the adults were doing.

 

Scripture #5

    "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." -Ps. 51:5

Here we are to believe that from the moment of conception a sinner is being formed. What will be growing in that womb for the next nine months will produce nothing but a dirty rotten sinner. In other words, we are to believe the essence of his substance, in soul and body, will be nothing but saturated with sin that was passed down from Adam.

First of all, David did not say this is the state of his constitution at, or before birth. The subject of the verse is his conception. David does not state that he was born guilty. Verse one describes the guilt of his mother.

Nobody is born a sinner. Sin is not a substance that can be transmitted from one individual to another. Sin is not a "physical" issue, but a "moral" issue. The clear definition of sin is found in the Bible, for it says that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Sin must be committed, it's not something you are born with."Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

A baptist preacher, A.T. Overstreet, states so well,

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

    We have already examined this text in chapter one and have seen that it is a figurative expression and does not teach that men are born sinners. The very idea that men can be born sinners is absurd. It is both a physical and a moral impossibility to be born a sinner. It is a moral impossibility because men cannot justly be sinners by birth. That men can be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth is morally unthinkable.

    It is a physical impossibility to be born a sinner because of the nature of sin. Sin is not a substance. It has no physical properties and cannot possibly be passed on physically from one person to another. What is sin? The Bible says, "Sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3:4. So, according to the Bible, sin is an act or a choice that transgresses the law of God. It cannot, therefore, be a substance because choice and substance are contradictories. Is a wicked act a substance? Is disobedience, transgressions, lawbreaking, or unrighteousness a substance? Is guilt a substance? No, they are all moral concepts or moral qualities. And it is impossible for them to be transmitted physically. When we speak of sin, we are describing the character of an act. The word sin describes the character of an act as being wicked or wrong.

    Sin is no more a substance than friendliness, goodness, or virtue are substances. If sin is a substance that can be transmitted physically, then virtue also must be a substance that can be transmitted physically. And what would be the result if all this were true? Why, sinners would beget sinners, and saints, of course, would beget saints!

    Sin is not a substance, and we all know that sin is not a substance. Yet learned theologians still maintain the impossible dogma that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Only in some fantastic science fiction novel might moral character be spoken of as being passed on physically in the bloodstream of man. Moral character, whether holiness or sinfulness, cannot be passed on physically. It is gross superstition to believe that it can be.

    Then what did David mean by the expression, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"? I answer, he used this figure of himself conceived and formed in his mother's womb as the embodiment of iniquity and sin to express, in strong symbolic language, his present sinful and guilty condition before God.

    This is David's penitential Psalm. He is deeply humbled and repentant for the sins he has committed, and he uses this strong language to confess his wickedness and guilt. But if David wanted God to understand his language to mean that he was a sinner by birth, the whole spirit of the Psalm is contradicted and changed. It is no longer a Psalm of penitence for sin, but it is turned into a Psalm of excuse for sin. For what better excuse could David make for his sins than the excuse that he was born a sinner? But these are not the words of a man making excuses for his sins; these are the words of a man humbled and deeply repentant for having sinned against God.

    To interpret this text literally violates two fundamental rules of sound Biblical interpretation. The first one is the rule that a text must not be interpreted in such a way as to contradict the clear teachings of the Bible in other parts. The Bible is the word of God. It is without error or contradiction, and so it is only reasonable that each part should maintain a unity, harmony, and agreement with every other part. God is not the God of confusion and contradiction. There is unity and agreement throughout his Word.

    But we have already pointed out that a literal interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is completely inconsistent with its context, because it amounts to David making an excuse for his sins in a Psalm which is manifestly a confession of guilt for his sins. The whole character and spirit of the Psalm is contradicted and changed by giving verse five a literal meaning.

    A literal interpretation is also inconsistent with the figurative and symbolic language used throughout this Psalm. To arbitrarily give a literal meaning to this one verse, without giving a literal meaning to the other symbolic expressions in this Psalm shows an inconsistency in interpretation that can only be explained by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.

    A literal interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is also inconsistent with numerous passages and teachings throughout the Bible. It makes God the Creator of sinners. For the Bible clearly teaches that God is our Creator, that he forms us in our mother's womb, and that he gives us life, breath, and all things. It directly contradicts the Scriptures that teach that God has created us upright and in his own image. And it makes Jesus a sinner, for the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus took upon himself human nature and became a man. Heb. 2:11, 14, 16-18; Heb. 4:15.

    The second rule that it breaks is the rule that a text must not be interpreted in such a way as to contradict reality. We should forever remember that the Bible does not teach nonsense. It does not teach that God breaks our bones when we sin (Psalm 51:8.). It does not teach that broken bones rejoice (Psalm 51:8..). It does not teach that our sins are purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:7). It does not teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born (Psalm 58:3). It does not teach that men go back into their mother's womb (Job 1:21). And it does not teach that the substance of unborn babies is sinful (Psalm 51:5). These are all figurative expressions, and to interpret them in their literal sense is to teach nonsense and what every man knows to be impossible and contrary to reality.

    The nature of sin, the nature of justice, and the nature of God are such that it is impossible for men to be born sinners. First, sin is voluntary. Is it a sin to be born with blue eyes, black hair, a small nose, or large ears? Is it a sin to be born short or tall? Is it a sin to be born at all? No, because we have no choice in the matter of our birth. Our birth, and everything we are and have at birth, is ours completely involuntarily. Second, sin is not a substance. It has absolutely no material or physical properties. Sin is an act, and so it is impossible for it to be passed on physically. Third, sin is a responsible choice. Newborn babies are not responsible. They do not know the difference between right and wrong, and so cannot be responsible. A child has no moral character at birth. Moral character can only belong to a child when he has come to know the difference between right and wrong. A child must first reach the "age of accountability" before he can sin. Isaiah 7:16, Deut. 1:39. Fourth, sin is personal and non-transferable. No man can sin for, or be made guilty for, the sin of another man. Moral character, guilt, and accountability are non-transferable. Ez. 18:20, Deut. 24:16.

    God's justice makes it morally impossible for men to be born sinners. Is it possible that the infinitely just God could cause men to be born sinners and condemn them to hell for the sin of Adam? Can the perfect justice of God permit him to impute guilt to the innocent or punish the innocent for the guilt of another? Is it really possible that innocent little babies open their eyes in this world under the wrath of God and that they are condemned to the torments of hell for the sin of Adam? Our whole reason revolts at such an idea. Yet this is the incredible dogma that is taught as orthodoxy in Christian churches today!

    This doctrine represents God as the most cruel and unreasonable being in the universe. It represents him as condemning and sending men to hell for a nature which they received without their knowledge or consent, and with which he created them. According to this doctrine, millions of heathen have been born into this world with a sinful nature and have lived without ever hearing the Gospel; they have sinned necessarily because of the nature with which they were born, and then they have died and gone down into hell without a chance to be saved. What a blasphemous slander this doctrine is upon the character and justice of God!

All these verses are pulled out of context to try and prove this false doctrine that all babies are born sinners is anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-truth, and anti-common sense.

 

Scripture #6

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

The entire human race, "born of a woman," falls into voluntary moral depravity because of the combination of influences in that direction (the world, the flesh, and the devil).

    How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? -Job 25:4

It is obvious that Job is one of the books in the Bible that is most quoted out of context. Like all the previous verses quoted, we have seen it demonstrated over and over how passages are used without acknowledging the surrounding text.

In the book of Job we know that Job was a perfect and upright man, one who feared God and eschewed evil. Job's world began to crumble when stricken with evil, and not once did he curse God. As much as Job suffered affliction, he still praised God. God never accused Job of being sinful and disobedient, that charge came from his friends. Job suffered the loss of his family and suffered a lot of physical pain and at one point in his life Job wished he had died at birth rather than continue in that awful condition. Job insisted that he was not afflicted as the result of unrighteousness or perverseness.

The questions above from Job 25:4 and 15:14 are directed to Job by his friends in response to Job declaring his innocence. The statements from his friends are not God's position on man. This is Bildad the Shuhite's opinion in chapter 25 who was echoing Elphaz the Temanite in chapter 15. The friends of Job were very wrong in their assessment of mankind. When it comes to Job's friends, God ordered them to offer sacrifices in Job's presence and to have Job pray for their forgiveness as a result of their folly (Job 42).

At this point, I would again like to quote A.T. Overstreet who comments concerning Job 14:4 and 15:14:

     Job 14:4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."

This text is supposed to teach that sinful parents will bear sinful children. But this is to completely ignore its context, which shows that Job had his eye wholly on the frail and dying state of man, and not at all upon his moral state. Job 14:1-6. The whole sense of what Job was saying was that no one can bring other than frail and dying offspring from frail and dying parents. To arbitrarily force this text to teach something that is completely foreign to its context can only be another example of an interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.

If this text teaches that a sinner invariably produces another sinner, it teaches blasphemy. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, then Mary, the mother of our Lord, was born a sinner. So if Job 14:4 really does teach that a sinner must produce another sinner, there could be no way of escaping the blasphemous conclusion that our Lord also was born a sinner.

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

 

It should first be said that these are the words of Eliphaz and so cannot be quoted as inspired truth. God himself testified that Job's comforters did not hold the truth. Job 42:7. But suppose we did accept this verse as inspired truth, what does it teach? It certainly teaches nothing about a morally depraved physical constitution. It merely implies the sinful condition of all mankind, without saying anything about how men got that way.

 

Scripture #7

    "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -Rom. 3:10-12.

This is supposed to prove that babies are born sinners? Again, let's get the context.

    "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. "

 

This is not talking about babies. This is not about going from lost to more lost. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one" is taken from Psalms 14:3. God had defined the way and prescribed path (Ex. 32:8..), but they turned aside from it, not that they were born that way. The "tongues they have used deceit," and "feet are swift to shed blood" is not describing the actions of infants.

    "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

 

The lack of understanding is a moral failure, a lack of heart understanding. It's not that he couldn't understand. Understanding is always available to those who want to know truth (Ps. 119:104, 130; Isa. 8:10; John 7:17, etc.). To make Romans 3:10 ("there is none that seeketh after God") a blanket statement of all mankind is to make the Scriptures to be in contradiction. The Lord himself says, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer. 29:13)

 If a person's heart does not seek after God, then you have a person who doesn't care to find, who ends up with a heart that doesn't understand. The condition of being without understanding is certainly avoidable and so puts the person in a blameworthy condition.

This is certainly not about babies being born in a sinful condition.

 

Scripture #8

    "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23

This is supposed to prove that babies are born sinners, that they are born dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1 says nothing about one being "born" dead in trespasses and sins).

Paul says all have sinned. Note Paul did not say all babies are born sinners. He said all have sinned. The word "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part. Sin is voluntary. All that have sinned are the ones who have sinned, all who have broken God's law. What law does a baby break? Infants are incapable of sinning.

 

Scripture #9

     "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

Neither does Romans 5:19 prove that all are born sinners.

If all die in Adam, then all are saved in Christ. We cannot make one absolute and the other conditional. In other words, IF Romans 5 says sin (which doesn't say sin passed, it says "death") is passed down from Adam in the unconditional sense, then the same chapter also teaches that the very same entire race of humans are ALL saved unconditionally, because of what Christ did. This would teach Universalism! There is no other way around it. One cannot wrest the Scriptures one way while interpreting the identical words another way.

That word "made" does not mean "formed". Nobody is made a sinner. God does not make sinners in the womb. That word "made" is a reference to someone being made an elder, priest, governor, etc. It carries the meaning of an appointed office or position. This passage isn't saying many were made sinners in that they were formed that way, but that they were appointed to be, as one is elected to an office. This is a reckoned position, not an actual condition. The English text bears this out, for when it says "by the obedience of one shall many be MADE RIGHTEOUS," certainly it is not saying that Christ's obedience actually caused us to do a level of righteousness that qualifies us for salvation. (See Spiritual Death

)

 

Scripture #10

    "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

This is supposed to prove that all sinned in Adam. As Overstreet has said so well.

    To teach from this passage that either the good or the evil that our ancestors have done is actually done by us is to wrest this passage from its context and to torture it into teaching utter nonsense. For instance, such an idea would make all the descendants of a Christian automatic Christians if his children were yet in his loins when he believed. Also, it would seem to make all the descendants of one who rejects the Gospel automatic unbelievers for coming out of the loins of an unbelieving father. In fact, if this theory is true, every good act of a man or every evil act of a man is counted as done by all of his offspring. But the problem with all of this is that we know that many godly men have had descendants who were enemies of God and vice versa. Abraham is an example of this. The Bible says that Abraham believed God and that his faith was counted unto him for righteousness, and Abraham is called the father of the faithful because of his faith. But Abraham has had millions upon millions of descendants who have not believed and have been lost. Yet according to the theory under question, all of Abraham's descendants should have been justified by his faith, for they were all yet in his loins when he believed God and was justified. Esau was a descendant of Abraham but God said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. 9:13. God destroyed the children of Israel (who were descendants of Abraham) in the wilderness for their unbelief, even though they were "yet in the loins of Abraham" when he believed.

    The problems with this nonsensical theory multiply when you realize that everyone of us have been "in the loins" of numerous ancestors going all the way back to Adam. This means that we actually participated in all the good and evil not only of Adam, but also of all our intervening ancestors as well. What an awful lot of good and evil we have done. We have all been busy for thousands of years in the loins of our ancestors doing good and evil!

    Now, do we get to pick and choose among our ancestors, choosing the ancestors whose deeds we like most, or must we heap them all together and take what they all have done? I am afraid that to do the latter would make our character quite a confused and conflicting thing. What if some of our ancestors were Christians and others were unrepentant sinners? Would we balance the good ones out against the bad ones and come up with what was left over?

    But the whole idea of sinning in Adam is a theological fiction that has been perpetuated to a large extent by Jerome's erroneous translation in the Latin Vulgate of Romans 5:12. He translated the Greek phrase eph o pantes hemarton by the Latin phrase in quo omnes peccaverunt, which means in whom all have sinned. This translation was in error, and Greek students agree that it was. Nevertheless, this error has helped to form and perpetuate the false doctrine that men actually sinned in Adam when he sinned.

    The teaching that men sinned in Adam directly contradicts the Bible's plain teaching that men sin in themselves and not in someone else, and there is no other way that men can sin. Paul spoke in Romans 5:14 of "them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Paul referred here to those who had sinned before the giving of the law and so had not sinned against a positive precept as Adam had, but only against the law of conscience and reason. Paul said they were sinners, but the fact that he said they had "not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" shows that Paul did not consider the sin of Adam to be their sin. Then in Romans 9:11, Paul, speaking of Jacob and Esau in the womb of their mother Rebecca, says, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..." Now here were two very remarkable children who for thousands of years had been in the loins of ancestors all the way from Adam through Abraham and Isaac, and during all those thousands of years of being in the loins of different ancestors, they had never done anything good or evil. This astonishing fact is hard to reconcile with the idea that every human being was supposed to have actually sinned in Adam, and that Levi actually paid tithes in Abraham.

    Scripture #11

     Eph 2:1-3

    "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

    It is clear from reading the verses that before we were saved, we were "dead in trespasses and sins." People like to misquote the verse by saying we are all  "born dead in trespasses and sins."  That it NOT what the Bible says.

    Trespasses and sins are in the plural form. Now some will say it refers back to Adam. How does that refer to Adam's trespass (singular)? Where in the passage does that refer us back to the time of Adam's sin? You say, "Well, it refers to spiritual death, because when Adam sinned, he died spiritually and we have all inherited his sinful nature; therefore, we are all born in trespasses and sins." Well, where in Ephesians 2:1 does it tell you all that?

    Where in the above verse does it say we are "BORN dead in trespasses and sins?" Where does it mention Adam, Adam's sin, or us inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin?

    Simply put: They were dead because of "sins" (plural, not singular, as Adam's sin) "in which they once walked" (v2), and conducted themselves in the lusts of the flesh (v3), which also applies to us who are saved.  That was our past!

    1. This contradicts inherited depravity and proves our position, that people are in sin because of their own conduct, not Adam's conduct.

    2. "Nature" here refers to a person's character which comes as a result of repeated practice, not necessarily by inheritance. What do you do with Rom. 2:14 where it says some people by nature obey God's will?  The false doctrine of total depravity says that is impossible.

    ______________________________________________

 

Odd and Ends

As you can see, none of the verses quoted above was taken out of context and is in harmony with Scripture. There was not one verse that said all babies are born sinners. I use the word "babies," because all adults started off as infants. I don't mind if you disagree, but if you write to me, you must be able to support your doctrine with Scripture, not philosophy and then try to fit it into the Scriptures. "For what saith the Scripture." (Rom. 4:3)

 

A lot of times the immediate reaction of people when you try to tell them this doctrine of Original Sin/Sinful Nature is a false doctrine is anger, or they can't believe how confused you are that you should turn your back on an established doctrine that has been around for centuries. The fact is, false doctrine has also been around for centuries. The other immediate reaction is to spurt off standards texts, like the ones quoted above. Once you are able to prove this doctrine is false and show how it contradicts other Scripture passages, their philosophy keeps jumping to the surface rather than just take the Scriptures at face value. An honest believer will follow the example of Christians found in Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

The doctrine of Original Sin did not originate with the Bible. Its origins can be found to come from Augustine, not the Bible. Calvin, who was a student of Augustine's writings, popularized this false doctrine. It's the influence of Greek philosophy that has crept into the Church. See

The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology. 

There Cannot Be An Age Of Accountability

 

For those who hold to the doctrine that babies are born sinners, there can be no such thing as "age of accountability". If everyone is condemned for the sin of Adam from birth, as they teach, there is no certain age before they become accountable. Why? Because this false doctrine, whether the babies sinned or not, makes them guilty and under God's wrath from birth, period.

 

Sensing the injustice of this awful doctrine, they have to find a way out of this dilemma! We will be told, "Babies and young children are taken care of by God's grace and go to heaven." Even this type of answer is not satisfactory, for according to Revelation 21:27 nothing defiled shall enter Heaven. So, in answer to this they must say, "But he doesn't take his sinful nature to Heaven with him. It is also taken care of by God's grace." Well, they are apparently unaware of what the Scriptures have to say about the continuation of the established character and personality of the individual. Revelation 22:11 states very plainly that there will not be any change that will take place after death. Also see Proverbs 27:22. Even if the body is destroyed, the foolishness that is part of his character would remain.

 

To make someone a sinful substance from the time of conception is to attack the character of God. How can you say enslavement to sin is a constitutional fault in our makeup? How can God hold us responsible for something we did not choose? This doctrine is a blasphemy against God's character. It also leaves us with the conclusion that sinners should be pitied rather than punished because they were born of such a substance (in sin) and therefore can't help but choose to live a life of sin! This makes sin a calamity, not a crime. This makes God to be some kind of monster. Reason can only conclude that since by nature you cannot choose other than evil, then you cannot be blamed. You have the best of all excuses for continuing in sin.

 

My dear brothers and sisters, God never made you a sinner against your will. Do not expect pity from anyone, especially God for your claim that He made you subject to have no control over your will by virtue of your natural birth and thus could not help but sin. What do you do with these sample of verses?

  •  

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

  •  

    "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" Malachi 2:10

  •  

    "Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Psalm 100:3

  •  

    "Thy hands have made me and fashioned me." Psalm 119:73

  •  

    "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright...." Ecclesiastes 7:29

 

How can someone charge God with making sinful beings in light of the Scriptures above? God didn't make you with a corrupt nature. The Bible is clear that man corrupts himself.

    "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth&ldots;And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:5-7, 11-12

    "(They) have corrupted themselves; They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it." Exodus 32:7-8

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

    "For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you." Deut. 31:29

    "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee...." Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Deuteronomy 32:5-6, 18\

 

Now, why do we sin? Why did Lucifer sin? Why did the angels sin? Why did Adam and Eve sin? Does anyone need a "sinful nature" to sin? Of course not. The Bible says, "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" James 1:14-15.

 

The Bible says man is tempted when he is drawn away of "his own lust," not by some fabricated story of some duel personality, sinful nature, the Adamic nature, old nature, etc., etc..

 

But just the same, Original Sin must be protected. As Brother Mike Miller put it,

    What are the effects of denying original sin? What other doctrines depend on original sin? What Bible doctrines are put in jeopardy by rejecting original sin? Does throwing out the doctrine of original sin upset the whole biblical idea of forgiveness and atonement for sin? According to one reformed theologian everything depends upon original sin. He said, "Were this Article of faith (Original Sin) taken away, there would be no Original Sin; the promise of Christ would become void, and all the vital force of our religion would be destroyed." Wow! This doctrine really is the foundation for everything to him!

    How can they look around them at this world filled with iniquity and say that there is no need of redemption and no need of a Saviour? Why must the doctrine of original sin, as prescribed by the Catholic Church, be true or there is no need for redemption? “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” is a very obvious fact, with or without the doctrine of original sin. Sin is a reality in the world we live in. It is pure absurdity to say that unless we accept the doctrine of original sin there is nothing that needs fixing. This world is full of sin and in need of a Saviour, but what it needs is a Saviour that will save them from sinning – not just give them a free ticket to heaven while they continue to live in sin, which is exactly what the doctrine of original sin makes provision for.

 

The real issue here is the ORIGIN OF SIN. We are taught that sin is part of our physical makeup, and the Bible flatly teaches otherwise. The Bible is clear that a person is born innocent and without any knowledge of good and evil and that we GO ASTRAY, WE TURN ASIDE every one to his own way. (Ps. 14:3, Eccl. 7:29, Is. 53:6, Matt. 18:12, Rom. 3:12, 2 Pet. 2:15, 1Pet. 2:25.) The Bible is clear that a person is born innocent and corrupts himself to be controlled by his own lusts. Sin is something that happens AFTER we are born, not something that is in our Genes DNA, or Chromosomes. This doctrine makes sin to be a physical problem, and this is exactly the belief in the majority of Christendom and the world. Those in the world think that some day he will be able find the cure for the "sin gene". Look at this lady's blog and see what kind of thinking this doctrine has produced:

http://www.whereistand.com/CarolHoenig/12556

 

There is also extensive research to look for the "gay gene."

 

Then there are cults like the JW's who believe sin is in the blood. This is what the Watchtower teaches,

    "The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits . . . The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood." (Watchtower 9/15/1961, page 564)

 

Watchtower is saying that such sins reside in physical blood. This is one of the reasons why they won't allow blood transfusions. Sin does not reside in the blood, nor does righteousness reside in the blood, and any Scripture quoted is used as a smokescreen to enforce the Gnostic thinking. The Bible does use terms like "innocent blood" and "righteous blood" (:righteous blood" only used one time..Matt. 23:38.), but this is not talking of the properties of blood itself. The innocent blood is speaking of one who was simply innocent from doing any crime, who are unjustly punished, and the righteous blood refers to those saints who were righteous, "righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias."

 

Here are two quotes some may use to try and prove blood has moral properties.

    "For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the LORD wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?" -1 Sam 19:5

    "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." -Matt. 23:35

 

Note it is obvious that it's not referring to moral properties in the blood, for physical blood has no moral properties. A person who is innocent is one who is free from guilt; not having done wrong or violated any law. In Matthew Jesus talks about those righteous people from Abel right onto Zacharias! Jesus was not referring to these people in the sense of their blood having moral property (for it doesn't!), but of the people themselves living a righteous life, innocent, and whose blood was shed, from Abel to unto the blood of Zacharias.

 

Some people try to prove that Jesus had "righteous blood" flowing in his veins by quoting 1 Peter 1:19 for support. Nowhere in the passage does it say anything about "righteous blood." The text says "PRECIOUS BLOOD."

    "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."

 

Precious means of great price; costly; as a precious stone. Highly valued; much esteemed. Nothing in there about moral properties in the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus shed his precious blood for our sins. He gave up his life for us. JESUS IS THE LAMB without blemish and without spot. He never sinned. As one pastor put it:

    There are those who try to say that since Jesus had no earthly father his blood was God’s blood. Acts 20:28 is the proof text. There are many problems with that, the first one being that God is a Spirit. (John 4:24) This is the nature of God. God is a Spirit and a Spirit has no blood. What is asserted in verse 28 is the divinity of Christ, for there are other passages where Jesus is expressly called God, but we also know that Jesus was also fully human. We know the Bible says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." and this purchase of the church was by Christ (Rev. 5:9) who is God and our Saviour!

    God is not flesh and blood – He is a Spirit. (John 4:24) He BECAME flesh through the virgin birth of Jesus. God doesn’t have 46 chromosomes – that is flesh, and God is a Spirit. GOD WAS MADE FLESH and dwelt among us. He WAS MADE like unto his brethren in all things. Nothing about the fleshly body of Jesus was different than anyone else ever born on the earth. We have heard a lot about the sinless blood of Jesus, but the fact is, He was entirely sinless; his hands, his feet, his eyes, his tongue, He was the sinless Saviour, but it wasn’t because his flesh was somehow different than ours. He was tempted “in all points” as we are, but He overcame temptation with the same things available to us – the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. The big difference was that He was GOD in a body of flesh – just like the body you and I have. The virgin birth was simply the means for God to become flesh – not a miracle to produce some different kind of fleshly body for God to live in.

 

Moral properties are not found in the blood. Sin nor righteousness reside in the blood. Sin is not in our Genes DNA, or Chromosomes. Sin is not a physical problem, it is a MORAL problem.

 

As said above, this doctrine of Original sin makes sin as a part of our physical makeup. You will often hear that Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity. That IN ADAM ALL SINNED. This is not Bible doctrine.

 

A careful examination of Old Testament Scriptures reveals that no one bears the iniquity of the father:

    "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son....." -Ezekiel 18:19-20

 

Children do not bear the sin of their parents., i.e., a son does not bear the iniquity of the sin of his father. Every person born is responsible for his own sin and will pay the penalty for it. The Scriptures clearly state:

     "The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, ....Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, ....shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, &ldots; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live." Ezekiel 18: 1-17

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are accountable to God for Adam's sin. We do not bear his iniquity, nor did we genetically inherit his sin, nor is it inbred into our hearts or will. No child is born a sinner. Romans 9:11 states,

     "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil."

 

And,

    "....sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:13

 

The Bible teaches that unborn children are not sinners, nor are they born saints. To charge children that they are born evil sinners is foreign to the word of God. Additionally, according to Rom 5:13, they are not accountable for Adam's sin because sin is not imputed (charged, accountable) when there is no moral law that has been personally and willfully broken.

 

Most religions teach that the Adamic sin is not something that is forgiven, but something that must be cleansed out. This doctrine certainly is not in the word of God.

 

I would like to quote a personal friend of mine where it concerns Seth.

    Was Seth Born A Sinner?

    In answer to the question as to whether Seth was born a sinner or not, we want to first introduce two differing views of thought before addressing the real meaning of this passage. The scripture in question is Genesis 5:3. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. The first view is that this scripture is addressing the spiritual and moral state in which Seth was born, while the second view is that this scripture is simply referring to Seth's outward appearance, and that it has nothing to do with his moral condition.

    Some of those who teach that sin is inherited have erroneously concluded that Adam passed sin onto Seth, his third son. They say that this was the beginning of "native depravity". According to the teaching, man's moral nature was corrupted and became sinful after the fall and that corrupted nature, or Adamic Original Sin , was genetically passed on to Seth. It attempts to redefine sin as a genetic substance rather then a choice. They say that Seth's moral status at birth, or even at the time of his conception, was patterned after Adam's corrupt sinful image after the fall, rather than in God's image. However, we must first note that this teaching is based on the assumption that Adam was unrepentant and in a sinful state at the time of Seth's birth. In all reality, the Bible does not even let us know for sure where Adam stood with God at the time when Seth was born. There are no negative connotations explicitly implied in this verse. We have indications that he taught His children to fear and serve the Lord, particularly in teaching his children the necessity of bringing offerings to the Lord (Gen 4:4), and it well may be that Adam had truly repented and received forgiveness from God such that he had been restored back into a right relationship with God. In light of this possibility, or even probability, this scripture would therefore teach that Seth would have been born in the image of God, just as Adam was originally created.

    However, the biggest problem with this particular theory is that it simply is not sound because it unjustly imposes a selective moral decay or imputed righteousness upon a newborn that is solely dependant upon the spiritual status of the father at the time of the infant's birth or conception. Such cannot be the case. Either all are born in the image of a sinful man or all are born in the image of God. Gen. 9:6 refutes the hypothesis that all are born sinful because it refers to a time period much later chronologically than that of Seth's birth, yet it is clearly stated "in the image of God made he man". New Testament scriptures also confirm the reality that since the creation of man, he has consistently been, and is yet created in the very image of God. Both 1 Cor 11:7 and James 3:9 conclusively state that man is "the image and glory of God" and that he is "made after the similitude (image) of God".

 

And I would like to add to that that in the beginning of Genesis 5, we read in the very first verse:

    "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;"

 

If man is so evil and corrupt and there are none that seeketh after God and their ways are continuously evil from the time of birth and come out speaking lies, etc., go back one chapter and we read in the last verse, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." (Gen. 4:26). As you can see, this false doctrine contradicts many passages of Scriptures.

 

We have seen in the word of God that sin is not inherited and nowhere in the Scripture does it say you lost the image of God. What man has done is abuse that image. They have corrupted themselves, morally and physically.

 

Nature

Man is not born with a sinful nature. The Bible speaks of no such thing. Let's go through the Bible and look at the verses that deal with the word nature in them. It mentions the word "nature" eleven times, and we will find that the Bible never uses the word as theologians do.

 

 The first verse we come upon deals with lesbian activity.

      1. 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:" Now, if the doctrine of sinful nature is true, then what these women were doing was simply acting in accordance to their nature, they could not do otherwise. But this is not what the Bible says. This sinful act did not spring up from a sinful nature, but it was an act against nature. The Bible proves that to sin is to go against the nature he gave us. Sin is NEVER natural, it's Un-natural. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame. A man will feel these three witnesses in his soul when he sins, which tells him sin is NOT natural. Even a simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins.

      2. Rom. 2:14 "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:" Here are Gentiles who do not have the law, and though they do not have the written law, yet are a law unto themselves. There is a law written by God in their hearts, knowing what is good and evil, and his conscience bearing witness to it. They act what is innate and inherit within them. They do it by nature. When they do what is right, they actually do what is in the law, when they disobey, they are sinning against their nature. The Gentile who only has his conscience and creation around him does what is natural, and what is natural is according to the law of God, not according to something evil, twisted, and perverted. Sin would be acting contrary to your created essence. You would be acting differently from how you were created to act and that's what makes it sinful.

      3. Rom. 2:27 "And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" This is simply referring to the uncircumcised state of a man when he is born. He is not naturally born circumcised.

      4. Rom. 11:24 "For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" The olive tree which is wild by nature is one which is uncultivated and unfruitful. Grafting is different from the natural order. It's not natural to take a good olive tree and plant it in a tree already growing.

      5. 1 Cor. 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? Here Paul appeals to nature itself, "Doth not even nature itself teach you...." Here man does something contrary to nature. Nature itself teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. If we were to believe the common teaching that all are born with a sinful nature, and everything about our nature was sinful and we turned to our nature for teaching, then it can only mean that it would always teach us the wrong thing! Nowhere does the Bible teach such a thing.

      6. Gal. 2:15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." This is not saying that the Gentiles were sinners and the Jews were not. Paul made this clear in Rom. 2:1-29, and Rom. 3:1-31. Nor does it mean that the Gentiles have sinful natures and the Jews do not. When Paul speaks of Jews by nature, he's not talking about the human nature as the term is usually used. It's a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile regarding nature, the created order. And though the Jews were not sinless, they were under more restraint than the Gentiles. The Jews had the law of Moses to keep them in check and there were consequences if they disobeyed the law. The Jews were not abandoned to gross and open sensuality, idolatry, etc., as the heathen world.

      7.  Gal. 4:8 "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." A piece of wood, by its nature,  it not a god.

      8. Eph 2:3 "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." This is one of the main verses that is supposed to prove that man is born with a sinful nature. Now read the verse in context and you will see that the wrath of God does not come upon these people because of the way they were born, but because of the way they WALKED (see verse 2.) Walking has to do with the way one lived. Nature here refers to a person's character which comes as a result of repeated practice. The Bible never says it came by inheritance. Paul said nothing about human nature, nor did he attribute sin to nature. Rom. 2:14 says some people by nature obey God's will, but those who teach total depravity, that all are born with a sinful nature, says that is impossible.

    As another Bible believer put it, "we all . . . were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (KJV). (Notice, "were.") God is never angry with people because of their ontological nature--how and with what they were born. Guilt cannot be predicated of essence (substance). No one is guilty of something that is beyond his or her control. The Bible always teaches that God's wrath rests upon people because of their sinful choices and the resulting deeds and practices, not for their natural being. To teach that God's wrath rests upon people because they were born a certain way is an outrageous blasphemy, a charge against God, Who is the Creator of our natural being (unless one holds to the notion of dualism). It is an offense to His justice and a stumblingblock to unbelievers. "Nature" (physis) has the same meaning here as in 2 Peter 1:4. It is the moral nature of sinners, acquired by their own choices, that offends a holy God. "Nature" here can also refer to our corrupt cultural heritage. This concept is found also in 1 Peter 1:18 and 19. Sin is "natural" to sinners only in the sense of the combination of human culture, other influences, and habitually yielding to the desires of the flesh and of the mind. If sin were truly "natural," it would be beneficial, because it would conform to our nature. The fact that sin is so destructive shows that it is totally unnatural.

      9. Heb 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." This is speaking about Jesus which says that he did not partake in the nature of angels, but of human nature. God became man, flesh and blood.

    10.  Jas 3:6 "And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. This is talking about trees and grass.

    11. 2 Peter 1:4 "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." Here we are taught that when one becomes a Christian, he now has two natures. We know that it's an impossibility for something to have two natures. The nature of wood does not have the nature of glass. The nature of water does have the nature of wood, etc. The verse says, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be [future tense] partakers of the divine nature...." not of the essence, but qualities of the divine nature, which enable us, in some measure, to resemble God. You get this in increments. In order for this verse to be the support for the idea that when we are born again we receive the nature of Christ and then have an old nature and a new nature, one would have to show from the passage that one receives this nature at new birth in its entirety. That is not the case. The passage teaches that we partake of the divine nature to the degree that we believe and appropriate and apply the promise of God to our life. This is talking about Christians in an ongoing way as they lay claim to the promises of God. He goes on and describes what this results in: "ADD to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity." It's an addition process, it's incremental that you build in your own experience, and in this process you are partaking of the divine nature, not of the very essence of God but rather his moral character (as the context clearly demonstrates). You don't have complete charity, you get that from God over a period of time, and so on with the other qualities as you lay hold to the promises of God. There's nothing here about receiving God's nature beside your nature and now having two natures. This is about appropriating the character of God in your own life.

    There is so much more that could be said how this doctrine affects other doctrines of the Bible. I have given a link below. However, I would like to conclude here of something Charles Finney said concerning this awful doctrine of sinful nature:

       Men plead a sinful nature for their excuse. And pray, what is this sinful nature? Do you mean by it that every faculty and even the very essence of your constitution were poisoned and made sinful in Adam, and came down in this polluted state by inheritance to you? Do you mean that you were so born in sin that the substance of your being is all saturated with it, and so that all the faculties of your constitution are themselves sin? Do you believe this?

      I admit if this were true, it would make out a hard case. A hard case indeed! Until the laws of my reason are changed, it would compel me to speak out openly and say--Lord, this is a hard case, that Thou shouldst make my nature itself a sinner, and then charge the guilt of its sin upon me! I could not help saying this; the deep echoings of my inner being would proclaim it without ceasing, and the breaking of ten thousand thunderbolts over my head would not deter me from thinking and saying so. The reason God has given me would forever affirm it.

      But the dogma is an utter absurdity. For, pray, what is sin? God answers--"transgression of law." And now you hold that your nature is itself a breach of the law of God--nay, that it has always been a breach of God's law, from Adam to the day of your birth; you hold that the current of this sin came down in the veins and blood of your race--and who made it so? Who created the veins and blood of man? From whose hand sprang this physical constitution and this mental constitution? Was man his own creator? Did sin do a part of the work in creating your physical and your mental constitution? Do you believe any such thing? No; you ascribe your nature and its original faculties to God, and upon Him, therefore, you charge the guilty authorship of your "sinful nature."

      But how strange a thing is this! If man is in fault for his sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is; but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers--of our intellect, our sensibility, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature. If you will observe, you will find that God has given no law prescribing what sort of nature and constitutional powers we should have. He has given no law on these points, the transgression of which, if given, might somewhat resemble the definition of sin. But now since there is no law about nature, nature cannot be a transgression.

      Here let me say, that if God were to make a law prescribing what nature or constitution a man must have, it could not possibly be otherwise than unjust and absurd, for the reason that man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all. And yet thousands of men have held the dogma that sin consists in great part in having a sinful nature. Yes, through long ages of past history, grave theologians have gravely taught this monstrous dogma; it has resounded from pulpits, and has been stereotyped for the press, and men have seemed to be never weary of glorifying this dogma as the surest test of sound orthodoxy! Orthodoxy!! There never was a more infamous libel on Jehovah! It would be hard to name another dogma which more violently outrages common sense. It is nonsense--absurd and utter NONSENSE! I would to God that it were not even worse than nonsense! Think what mischief it has wrought! Think how it has scandalized the law, the government, and the character of God! Think how it has filled the mouths of sinners with excuses from the day of its birth to this hour!

      Now I do not mean to imply that the men who have held this dogma have intelligently insulted God with it. I do not imply that they have been aware of the impious and even blasphemous bearings of this dogma upon Jehovah;--I am happy to think that some at least have done all this mischief ignorantly. But the blunder and the mischief have been none the less for the honest ignorance in which they were done.

    ___________________________________________________

    Suggested reading material:

    Babies: Those “Awful” Creatures!

    Paul Struggling With Sin? 

    Spiritual Death

    ____________________________________________________

First and foremost, I am thankful for God's word and I wish to thank the brothers and sisters whom I have gleaned and compiled this study. You may take this material and freely distribute to those whom you think will benefit from this study in God's word.

In His Service,
Sandy


 
< Prev   Next >

Help Support This Ministry

Enter Amount: