Index To Articles on    Original Sin

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

Part Three: Implications of a False Doctrine

 7. Thirteen Reasons Why the Doctrine of Original Sin Is False

Part Four: Insurmountable Problems of a False Doctrine

 8. The Great Problem of Original Sin
 9. Original Sin Makes God Inconsistent and Imperfect
 10. Jesus Was a Man
 11. Can Christians Live Without Sin?
 12. God Hates False Doctrine
 13. Footnotes for Text
 14 Bibliography
 

Part Three: Implications of a False Doctrine

Chapter Seven: 13 Reasons why the Doctrine of Original sin is False

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it. Deut. 4:2

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Rev. 22:18

The doctrine of original sin is false because:

1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
2. It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.
3. It excuses the sinner.
4. It makes God responsible for sin.
5. It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.
6. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin.
7. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.
8. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.
9. It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.
10. It contradicts the Bible.
11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18,19.
12. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.
13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable.
It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do.

Now let us look more fully at each of these points.

1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.

In fact, if the doctrine of original sin were true, sin would be a calamity rather than a crime. Could a sinful nature be the crime of him upon whom it is entailed without his knowledge or consent? If this doctrine were true, the sinner would be the most unfortunate creature in the universe. To blame him or call him criminal for his sins would be absurd, and to punish him for his sins would be a cruel injustice. He would not deserve punishment for his sins, but would rather deserve pity and compassion for the misfortune he had suffered by being born into this world with a sinful nature. And, of course, under these circumstances the Bible would have to be rewritten. For it never speaks of the sinner as unfortunate. It speaks of the sinner's guilt and ill-desert. In the Bible, sin is represented as a crime that deserves the everlasting punishment of hell. {TOP OF PAGE}

2. It excuses the sinner.

The sinner knows he cannot be to blame for his sins if he is born a sinner and sins unavoidably because of the nature with which he is born. The sinner is compelled to excuse himself (secretly at least) if he really believes that he sins because of an inborn sin nature. It is not a matter of whether he chooses to excuse himself or not; he cannot help but excuse himself. If he really believes that he is born a sinner and that he cannot help but sin because of inborn sin, he must and he will excuse himself, even if only secretly.

Over against the fact that this doctrine gives the sinner an excuse for his sins, we have the biblical fact that God does not excuse sin. Sin in the Bible is always denounced in the strongest language possible and under the most terrible of penalties. The letter and the spirit of the whole Bible is against any doctrine that would permit men to excuse themselves in their sins.  {TOP OF PAGE}

3. It makes God responsible for sin.

If men are born with a sinful nature, who is to blame? Surely not the sinner, for he had no choice in being born with a sinful nature. The sinner is no more to blame for being born with his nature than he is for being born with blue eyes. But, who is the author of our nature? Who is our Creator? Who formed us in our mother's womb? Who gave us life and breath and all things? To talk of men being born with a sinful nature is to ascribe sin to God because God is the Author of our nature. {TOP OF PAGE}

4. It dishonors God and makes his government tyrannical, cruel, and unjust. According to this doctrine, innocent little babies are born with a sinful nature, and because of their nature, are objects of God's wrath. Could anything make God more cruel and unreasonable?

This doctrine is infinitely dishonorable to God. Men know it would be cruel and unjust to condemn them for the nature with which they are born. They know that they cannot justly be worthy of the wrath of God for being born with a nature which they did not choose and which they could not avoid. They know that God would be a tyrant and his government tyranny if this grotesque doctrine were true. {TOP OF PAGE}

5. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.

The sinner could not help but stumble over a doctrine that represents God as being cruel and unjust. According to this doctrine, God created us under such physical laws as would cause us all to be born sinners, and then condemns us for being born sinners! The sinner who really believes this doctrine is compelled to regard God as infinitely cruel and unjust. It is not a matter of whether he chooses to regard God as unjust. His irresistible convictions of justice, given to him in his nature by God, will compel him to regard God as unjust. He may not voice his convictions, but he will still hold them secretly nonetheless.

And as long as he feels that God's government is unjust and that he is not to blame for his sins, he cannot really repent. Repentance implies that the sinner blame himself for his sins. It implies that he admit that God and his government are righteous and that he has been all wrong. It implies that, in this spirit, the sinner turn from his sins and submit himself to God's government. But all of this is impossible while the sinner believes a doctrine that causes him to excuse his sins and to regard God's government as cruel and unjust. {TOP OF PAGE}

6. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.

Christ has two great causes in this world today: the salvation of the lost and the perfection of his church. Every influence of this doctrine is to hinder these two great causes of Christ. If the sinner believes that God's government is unjust and that he is not really to blame for his sins, then he will not and cannot genuinely repent. And if the Christian believes that his very nature is sinful and that it is impossible for him to live without sinning, then he will not aim for Christian perfection, nor will he feel greatly disturbed about sin and worldliness in his life. Every tendency of this doctrine begets an indulgent spirit toward sin and a low standard of religion among Christians. {TOP OF PAGE}

7. It soothes the conscience of sinning Christians, causing them to stumble into hell. Christians sometimes make the excuse that they cannot help but sin because of a sinful nature inherited from Adam. One brother told me that, before his conversion, he actually prayed to God for clemency and excused his sins by telling God that his sins were the result of his Adamic sin nature. This false doctrine soothes the conscience of unnumbered sinners in the churches and will ultimately stumble them into a sinner's hell.  {TOP OF PAGE}

8. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin in their churches. Ministers who believe this doctrine will have a tendency to wink at and excuse sin in their churches. The whole tendency of this doctrine is to beget an indulgent spirit toward sin, and the low, unscriptural standard of religion that actually exists in many churches today.

Where this doctrine is taught and believed there will be little real horror of sinning against God. Christians and ministers will excuse sin with such statements as: "Nobody's perfect," "Even the Apostle Paul had to struggle with 'indwelling sin,'" "God will change us when we get to heaven," "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven," "Be patient, God is still working on me," "I made a mistake," and "God understands our weaknesses and human frailties."

Ministers who really believe this doctrine and have worldly members in their churches will not be inclined to blame them for their worldliness. And, thus, the worldly will be allowed to settle down in their worldliness without feeling any really great danger. After all, God knows and understands that they have the "old Adamic sin nature" dwelling in them and will have until they die and go to heaven. God will not judge them for their human weaknesses, frailties, and faults. So multitudes of people in the churches deceive themselves, and go on in the broad way of worldliness, selfishness, and sin which will finally lead them down into hell. {TOP OF PAGE}

9. It contradicts all the great doctrines of the Bible.

This doctrine is so out of character with the Bible that it contradicts all its fundamental teachings. This is something that no true doctrine of the Bible could do, but is exactly what would be expected of a false doctrine. We have already seen that it permits the sinner to excuse himself in his sins. But the letter and the spirit of the whole Bible is against any doctrine that would permit men to excuse themselves in their sins. We have seen that it makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime. But the Bible speaks of sin as an act that deserves the everlasting punishment of hell. Also, we have seen that it makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins. But you can search through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will find that God never pities but always blames the sinner for his sins.

The fact is that the doctrine of original sin is so contrary to the Bible that to try to make the two harmonize would be like trying to make light and darkness exist together in one and the same place. Only by completely rewriting the Bible could it be made to agree with the doctrine of original sin.

For instance, the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible are contradicted by the doctrine of original sin:

a. The doctrines of mercy, grace, guilt, pardon, and repentance. See Sin and Salvation

Can a man really be guilty for possessing the nature with which he is born? Can God show him mercy, and pardon his guilt if it is true that he has suffered the misfortune of being born into this world a sinner? What kind of grace would it be that would save a man from the misfortune of being born into this world a sinner? It would not be grace that would save him; it would be justice. And how could a man sincerely repent and condemn himself for his sins if he believed that he was born a sinner and could not avoid sin because of an inborn sin nature? All the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are emptied of their meaning and become contradictory and confusing if the doctrine of original sin is accepted.

b. The doctrine of God's justice and righteousness in his judgment of sinners.

The Bible says that God will "judge the world in righteousness." Psalm 9:8. But could God judge the world and be righteous if this doctrine were true? What of the heathen who are lost without ever hearing the Gospel? If this doctrine is true, the heathen are born sinners and will of necessity live in sin because of an inherited sin nature, and when they die without ever hearing the Gospel and having a chance to be saved, they are doomed to the everlasting punishment of hell. Now if it is true that they are born sinners and cannot help but sin, can God justly send them to hell? Our God-given convictions of justice war against such an idea.

Those who believe in the doctrine of original sin cannot escape the conviction that justice requires that the heathen have a chance to hear the Gospel and be saved. They cannot escape the convictions that it is unjust that the heathen be lost without at least having the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel. They feel that the heathen are owed the opportunity to hear the Gospel so they might have a chance to be saved.

But where did this idea come from that the heathen are owed the chance to be saved? I answer: It springs up irresistibly from the belief that men are not the authors of their own sin. It springs up from the belief that men are born with a sinful nature and cannot help but sin. So since they are born with a sinful nature and cannot help but sin, they cannot deserve hell without at least a chance to hear the Gospel and be saved. But the idea that any one is owed the chance to be saved is completely foreign to the Bible. God does not owe anyone the chance to be saved. He does not save anyone to satisfy justice. Jesus did not die for wicked men because he owed them a chance to be saved, but because of his love, mercy, and grace.

But those who believe in the doctrine of original sin find themselves with compelling convictions that contradict the fundamental Bible doctrine of God's righteousness in judging the heathen. The doctrine of original sin compels them to believe that it is not just for the heathen to be judged without a chance to be saved. And, in fact, if the doctrine of original sin were true, it would not be just to condemn the heathen without a chance to hear the Gospel and be saved. Moreover, if the doctrine of original sin were true, salvation would be on the grounds of justice rather than grace. The justice of God would require that God not only make sure that all mankind have a chance to hear the Gospel, but it would also require that God provide grace (or justice) of such a magnitude that all men would certainly and irresistibly be saved.

Finney makes the following remarks upon the unscriptural tendencies of a belief in the doctrine of original sin:

I object to the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, that it makes all sin, original and actual, a mere calamity, and not a crime. For those who hold that sin is an essential and inseparable part of our nature, to call it crime, is to talk nonsense. What! a sinful nature the crime of him upon whom it is entailed, without his knowledge or consent? If the nature is sinful, in such a sense that action must necessarily be sinful, which is the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, then sin in action must be a calamity, and can be no crime...since the will has nothing to do with it.

Of course it must render repentance, either with or without the grace of God, impossible, unless grace sets aside our reason. If repentance implies self-condemnation, we can never repent in the exercise of our reason. Constituted as we are, it is impossible that we should condemn ourselves for a sinful nature, or for actions that are unavoidable. The doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution, and of necessary sinful actions, represents the whole moral government of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every doctrine of the Gospel, as a mere farce. Upon this supposition the law is tyranny, and the Gospel an insult to the unfortunate.

It is difficult, and, indeed, impossible for those who really believe this doctrine to urge immediate repentance and submission on the sinner, feeling that he is infinitely to blame unless he instantly comply. It is a contradiction to affirm, that a man can heartily believe in the doctrine in question, and yet truly and heartily blame sinners for not doing what is naturally impossible to them. The secret conviction must be in the mind of such a one, that the sinner is not really to blame for being a sinner, any more than he is to blame for being a human being. This the advocate of this doctrine must know. It is vain for him to set up the pretense that he truly blames sinners for their nature, or for their conduct that was unavoidable. He can no more do it, than he can honestly deny the necessary affirmations of his own reason. Therefore the advocates of this theory must merely hold it as a theory, without believing it, or otherwise they must in their secret convictions excuse the sinner.

This doctrine naturally and necessarily leads its advocates, secretly at least, to ascribe the atonement of Christ rather to justice than to grace to regard it rather as an expediency to relieve the unfortunate, than to render the forgiveness of the inexcusable sinner possible. The advocates of the theory cannot but regard the case of the sinner as rather a hard one, and God as under an obligation to provide a way for him to escape a sinful nature, entailed upon him in spite of himself, and from actual transgression which result from his nature by a law of necessity. If all this is true, the sinner's case is infinitely hard, and God would appear the most unreasonable and cruel of beings, if he did not provide for their escape. These convictions will, and must, lodge in the mind of him who really believes the dogma of a sinful nature. This, in substance, is sometimes affirmed by the defenders of the doctrine of original sin.

The fact that Christ died in the stead and behalf of sinners, proves that God regarded them not as unfortunates, but as criminal and altogether without excuse. Surely Christ need not have died to atone for the misfortunes of man. His death was to atone for their guilt, and not for their misfortunes. But if they are without excuse for sin, they must be without a sinful nature that renders sin unavoidable. If men are without excuse for sin, as the whole law and the Gospel assume and teach, it cannot possibly be that their nature is sinful, for a sinful nature would be the best of all excuses for sin.

This doctrine is a stumbling-block to the church and the world, infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomination alike to God and the human intellect, and should be banished from every pulpit, and from every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as every one may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself. {TOP OF PAGE}

10. It makes Jesus a sinner

The doctrine of original sin makes Jesus a sinner. The advocates of the doctrine of original sin quote Job 14:4 and 15:14 to teach that men are born sinners:

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

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

The first of these texts supposedly teaches that a sinner will always produce another sinner. The second is supposed to teach substantially the same thing, that is, that all those who are born of woman are born sinners. But if the doctrine of original sin is true, then Mary, the mother of our Lord, was also born a sinner; and if a sinner always produces another sinner, and if all those who are born of woman are born sinners, then there is no way to escape the conclusion that Jesus also was born a sinner. So in misusing these and other texts to teach that men are born sinners, the advocates of original sin are also making Jesus a sinner because he partook of the same human nature as other men.

Jesus was a man. He was born of a woman. He was the seed of Abraham, the offspring of David, descended from Adam. Matt. 1:1, Rom. 1:3, Heb. 2:16, Rev. 22:16. The humanity of Christ is fully and unequivocably taught in the Bible, and to teach the doctrine that men are born sinners is to teach the blasphemy that "the man Christ Jesus" was born a sinner.

The Bible says, "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham." Heb. 2:16. "In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest." Heb. 2:17. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." Heb. 2:14. "For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. "For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.

The Bible teaches that Christ was, in all respects, a real man, possessing both a human body and a human soul, and with all the attributes of a man. He was born of a woman. He was nourished and cared for by his mother, as other men are. He was circumcised according to the law of Moses. He was once an infant in knowledge, for he grew both in Wisdom and in stature. He hungered, he thirsted, he ate, he drank, he labored, he slept, he grew tired, and he lived and died like other men. He was recognized as a man and a Jew by other men. "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be make like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." "For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:17, 4:15, 2:11.

It is a serious error to deny the deity of Christ. One cannot be a Christian and deny his deity. John taught that it is equally serious to deny the humanity of Christ. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." I John 4:2, 3. "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7. See Section ‘Was Jesus God?’ On THIS Page

The doctrine of Christ's human nature is fully attested in the Bible. Nevertheless, because of their belief that men are born sinners and that human nature or the flesh is inherently sinful, the defenders of the doctrine of original sin must deny in some way or another the real humanity of Christ and that he came in human flesh like other men. Phil. 2:6-8, I Tim. 3:16, Gal. 4:4, John 1:14, I John 4:2-3, II John 7.

Augustine did this by teaching that sin is transmitted through the lust of procreation so that since Jesus was born of a virgin, he was not born through lust and therefore was not born with the same sinful nature as other men. Harnack says:

The extremely disgusting disquisitions on marriage and lust in the polemical writings against Julian are, as the latter rightly perceived, hardly independent of Augustine's Manichaeism...And the disquisitions are by no means a mere outwork in Augustine's system; they belong to its very center...Children possess original sin, because their parents have procreated them in lust and by this proposition stands or falls the doctrine of original sin. So also Christ has sinlessness attributed to him because he has not been born of marriage, and Augustine imagined paradisaical marriages in which children were begotten without lust, or, as Julian says jestingly, were to be shaken from trees.

This idea of Augustine that lust in procreation transmits sin contradicts the whole spirit of the Scriptures on marriage and the bearing of children. Moreover, the Bible nowhere teaches that the virgin birth of Jesus was to keep him from being born with original sin. The Bible teaches that there was one, and only one, reason for the virgin birth of our Lord. It was so that God could take on human nature, become a man, and dwell among us. Luke 1: 31-35, John 1:14, Gal. 4:4, Matt. 1:1. The reason for the virgin birth is made plain in Luke 1:31-35. This passage gives no hint that the reason for the virgin birth was to keep Jesus free from original sin; what it does tell us is that the reason was so that God's Son could be born.

But we have already seen the Scriptures in Hebrews which show that Christ took upon himself our human nature (Heb. 2:14), that he was in all things made like his brethren (Heb. 2:17), that he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one (Heb. 2:11), and that he was tempted like we are in all points (Heb. 4:15), yet without sin. Could it really be true that he was tempted in all points like we are if he did not have the same nature as we? And is it not true that the word "yet" in the statement "yet without sin" would lose all its force and meaning if Christ had not been tempted in the same human nature as we yet without sin?

Every which way it turns, the doctrine of original sin flies in the face of the teachings of the Word of God. It makes Jesus a sinner, or it must deny his true humanity.  {TOP OF PAGE}

11. It begets other false doctrines.

Many false views on sin and salvation, with their concurrent misinterpretations of the Scriptures, come out of this one fundamental error. Consider the following:

a. The doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception."

This is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ was "conceived free from any of the corruption of original sin," in order that she might be pure enough to be the mother of Christ. Of course, this doctrine is not taught in the Bible. It is an invention of men, made necessary by a belief in the doctrine of original sin. [See The Evolving Doctrine of Mary and The Real Mary of The Bible]

b. The doctrine of infant baptism for the remission of original sin.

This doctrine is another invention of men, made necessary to relieve innocent little infants from the guilt of original sin and the wrath of God, which supposedly rest upon them because of being born with a sinful nature. [See Section on Baptism]

c. The doctrine of Limbo.

This doctrine is another invention made necessary for infants who die without baptism. Limbo is supposed to be a place where unbaptized infants go instead of hell, "where neither the joys of heaven nor the miseries of hell prevail." [See Is There A Purgatory? ]

d. The doctrine that men have lost the image of God since the fall of Adam.

This is another unbiblical doctrine made necessary by a belief in the doctrine of original sin. Of course, if men come into this world "dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body," as the Westminster Confession says, they have certainly not been created in the image of God. But the fact that man is created in the image of God is evident from the Scriptures. God told Noah, long after the sin of Adam, that man was "made in the image of God." Gen. 9:16. And, of course, the New Testament Scriptures teach just as clearly that man is created in the image of God. (See I Cor. 11:7, James 3:9, Acts 17:29.) It is amazing how men will ignore the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures in order to accommodate the doctrine of original sin. [See The Problem With Creeds]

e. The doctrine of a physical, passive regeneration.

Believing, as the advocates of original sin do, that moral depravity is constitutional in nature, they must believe in a physical and passive regeneration, in order to be consistent. Regeneration, according to this school, is a change in the constitutional nature of man. It is a change wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit, in which the sinner is wholly passive, and in which new and holy susceptibilities, dispositions, tastes, and appetites are implanted or created in the soul.

The problem with this is that no such physical or passive regeneration is taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that the work which the Holy Spirit does in the sinner is moral rather than physical. It is a work of moral suasion, of divine teaching and illumination, of convicting and reproving of sin. John 6:44-45, John 16:8, James 1:18, John 15:3, I Peter 1:22-23. The Bible teaches that the sinner cannot be passive in regeneration, but he must respond to the voice of God. He must repent and make to himself "a new heart and a new spirit." Ez. 18:30-32.

The Bible teaches that regeneration is the work of both God and man: (1) The work of God: Titus 3:5, James 1:18, I John 3:9, John 3:5, John 6:44-45; (2) The work of the sinner himself: Ez. 18:31, I Peter 1:22, James 4:7-8, Acts 3:19, James 1:21, Jer. 4:14; (3) The work of men who preach the Word of God: I Cor. 4:15, Fil. 1:10, James 5:19-20, Prov. 11:30, Dan. 12:3, Mark 1:17, I Cor. 9:22; and (4) The work of the Word of God: I Cor. 4:15, James 1:18, James 1:21, I Peter 1:23.

There is no passive physical change in the sinner when he becomes a saint. The Bible teaches that regeneration is an active, cooperative, moral change, and not a passive physical change.

f. The doctrine of a natural inability to repent.

If man's very nature is sinful, then it is a natural impossibility for him to repent. This fact has led naturally and necessarily to the doctrine that God first changes the sinner's nature in regeneration (passive regeneration), and then the sinner repents. According to this school of thought, repentance and conversion both follow regeneration because the sinner cannot obey God's command to repent and be converted until after he has been regenerated. See Calvinism

g. The doctrines of arbitrary election and reprobation, absolute and unconditional predestination, irresistible grace, and a necessitated will.

All of the above doctrines follow logically from a belief in constitutional sinfulness. Augustine, the father of the doctrine of original sin, taught that salvation depends on God's inscrutable election and predestination, independent of any human agency. He taught that man is born with a corrupt and depraved nature, that he is not free (except to do evil), that he has a necessitated will, that God's love is infused, and that man is by nature absolutely unable to love God, or do anything good. These teachings of Augustine engendered fatalism and despair in the hearts of some in the Catholic Church:

In 426 or 427, it was reported to Augustine that the monks in the cloister of Adrumetum in North Africa were in some cases driven to despair, in other cases moved to careless self-indulgence, by his teaching as to man's helplessness and as to irresistible grace.

Free will, grace, predestination, election, and reprobation are, of course, biblical doctrines. It is only the extreme and fatalistic views of these doctrines, as taught by Augustine and others who believe in the constitutional sinfulness of man, that are unscriptural.

h. The doctrine of a natural inability to obey God.

The doctrine of a natural inability to obey God is at the very heart of the doctrine of original sin. According to the advocates of original sin, all men, even those who are Christians, have a corrupt, sinful nature and are unable to obey God as long as they are in this life:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. Westminster Confession.

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated. Westminster Confession. By reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. Westminster Confession.

They deplore their inability to love their Redeemer, to keep themselves from sin, to live a holy life in any degree adequate to their own convictions of their obligations...They recognize it as the fruit and evidence of the corruption of their nature derived as a sad inheritance from their first parents. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 273.

No man is able...by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed. Larger Catechism.

...whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Larger Catechism.

This doctrine opens the floodgates of rebellion against God, for it implies impunity for sin. Surely God would not be so unreasonable as to judge us for sin when he knows that we are by nature unable to obey him. Oh, what a lie the church has embraced! There is not one verse of Scripture in the entire Bible that says men have a sinful nature which makes them unable to obey God. It is true that all sinners are in a moral sense unable to obey God, but they are not naturally unable to obey God. And there is a great difference between a natural inability and a moral inability to obey God. Let us illustrate the difference between the two: A friend of mine is standing next to his brand new Cadillac. I ask him, "Can you lift your car off the ground?"

"No!" he answers. His answer here refers to a natural inability. It is naturally and physically impossible for him to lift so much weight.

Then I ask, "Can you sell me your new car for a dollar?"

Again, he answers, "No!" His answer this time refers to a moral inability. It does not mean that it is really a natural impossibility for him to sell his car, but that he cannot sell it because he is not willing to sell it.

The Bible never speaks of a sinner's natural inability to obey God. When it speaks of the sinner's inability to obey God, it is always speaking of a moral inability. He cannot obey because he is so selfish that he is unwilling to obey. All men can obey if they will. The following are just a few of the many verses from the Bible that teach that the Christian has been freed from his sins by the grace of Christ, and that he now has the power to live a victorious sin-free life:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Rom. 6:6

Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Rom. 6:17, 18

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom. 6:22

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:34, 36

Now, who shall we believe? Shall we reject God's Word in order to hold on to a man-made doctrine? Shall we go to God in prayer and say: "Lord, thou hast promised that sin shall not have dominion over me thou hast promised that he whom the Son sets free is free indeed and Lord, thou hast given many other promises, assuring me of thy grace and power to keep me from sin but Lord, I don't believe thy promises; Lord, I don't think thou art able to keep me from sin in this life because I have been taught by men that I still have the remaining corruptions of original sin in me and will not be able to obey thee perfectly until I die and go to heaven."

Now, although you may not voice these very words in prayer, this is the unbelieving spirit that rules your life if you excuse sin by claiming a natural inability to obey God. But again, the doctrine of inability contradicts the very heart of the Gospel the good news that Jesus died to liberate us from our sins:

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father. Gal. 1:4

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Titus 2:14

God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 3:26

Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

If the doctrine of inability is true, the atonement of Christ was a failure, because he died to "redeem us from all iniquity," to "deliver us from this present evil world," to "turn us from our iniquities," and to make us "holy, and without spot, wrinkle, or blemish."

The doctrine of inability demeans the grace and the power of God. What a low opinion preachers have of the grace and power of God when they say that God cannot enable his people to live without sin. God tells us that "sin shall not have dominion over us because we are under his grace," he tells us that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," and he tells us that we are "kept by the power of God, through faith." But the doctrine of inability tells us that, with all of God's abounding grace, we are still unable to obey him and live without sin. Listen as the advocates of original sin cast aspersions upon the power of God's grace to free from sin: "No man is able...by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed." Larger Catechism.

The doctrine of inability makes God a liar. He solemnly promises to keep us from being tempted above our ability to obey. He promises to liberate us from all sin, and to preserve us in righteousness and holiness, but according to the doctrine of inability, his promises are all empty. If the doctrine of inability is true, then God is insincere and deceitful because he commands us to do what he knows we cannot do. Surely if the doctrine of inability is true, God knows about it. Yet in the face of all this, he commands: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" and "As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." Matt. 5:48, I Peter 1:15. Now if God gives us these commandments, knowing that it is impossible for us to obey them, then he is insincere and deceitful.

The fact is that the doctrine of inability turns the whole Bible upside-down. It mocks both the promises and the commandments of God. It blackens God's character, demeans his grace, and excuses the sinner in his sins. It is not just a harmless myth and religious superstition; it is infinitely worse. It is a devilish doctrine that muffles the voice of conscience, corrupts Christian practice, and stumbles Christians into hell. It teaches that the Christian must never expect to be saved from sin in this life, and that he should expect to live more or less in rebellion against his Savior until he dies and goes to heaven. What a lie from the devil! Where can this teaching be found in the Bible? Instead of teaching that the Christian cannot be freed from sin and made holy until he gets to heaven, the Bible warns that the unholy will never get to heaven! [See Section Essential Christianity on This Page].

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb. 12:14

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matt. 5:8

Judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? I Peter 4:17, 18

Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. Rev. 3:4, 5

The myth that God will transform the character of the sinning Christian when he gets to heaven, and once there, make him a holy Christian, is just that a myth. The decree of God is:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Rev. 22:11

God will not change the character of anyone after he dies. He is changing the character of sinners now, in this life, while we are yet in this present world. There will be a change in the Christian when he gets to heaven, but not in his character. His body will be changed. The Bible says, "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." I Cor. 15:53. This is not talking about a change of character; it is talking about an incorruptible body that will never die. But, oh, how many are deceiving themselves by the false doctrine that suddenly, when they get to heaven, they will be transformed into holy Christians. Hear again the words of the Revelator:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be...Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates of the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Rev. 22:11, 12, 14, 15

The doctrine of a natural inability to obey God is a devilish doctrine that is stumbling multitudes of professing Christians into hell. {TOP OF PAGE}

12. The doctrine of original sin adds to and takes from the Bible.

God says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deut. 4:2. But the whole original sin dogma is an addition to the Bible.

For instance, the doctrine of original sin teaches that the whole human race existed in Adam and sinned with him when he transgressed, that we had one common will with Adam, that his will was the will of the race, and that when Adam revolted, the will of the race revolted with him. But you can search your Bible through from beginning to end, and you will never find this taught in it. It is not taught there. It is man's doctrine added to the Bible.

Again, the doctrine of original sin teaches that Adam was our federal head or moral representative, and that God made a covenant with him, agreeing to give eternal life to him and all his descendants if he obeyed, and threatening condemnation upon him and all his descendants if he disobeyed. But is any of this teaching in the Bible? No, the Bible is silent about this imagined covenant made with Adam.

Again, men teach that God created us under such physical laws as would cause us all to be born sinners. They teach that we are born with a corrupt sinful nature which is the fountain and cause of all our actual sins, that we sin unavoidably because of that nature, and that even the Christian sins necessarily because of the "remaining corruptions" of his inborn sin nature. Can these unholy and grotesque teachings be found in the Bible? No. They are all additions to the Bible.

Does the Bible speak of the "Immaculate Conception"? Does it speak of infant baptism for the remission of original sin? Does it speak of "Limbo"? Does it talk about an "inborn sin nature" or an Adamic sin nature"? Does it mention "original sin" or "actual sin," making a distinction between the two? No. None of these doctrines and none of these terms can be found in the Bible. They are all inventions of men and additions to the Bible.

But the doctrine of original sin also takes from the Word of God. It takes away those passages in the Bible that declare that men are guilty and blameworthy for their sins, and makes their sins the unfortunate result of being born with a sinful nature. It takes away all those passages in the Bible that teach that God is loving, good, and just and makes him cruel and unjust, by teaching that God condemned the whole human race for Adam's sin. It takes away those passages in the Bible that teach that men are created upright, with a good nature, and in the image and likeness of God, by teaching that since Adam's sin, men are no longer created in the image of God, but are born defiled in "all the faculties and parts of soul and body." It takes away those texts in the Bible that teach that Jesus had true human nature like other men, by teaching that Jesus could not have had the same human nature as other men without being a sinner.

It takes away the heart and soul of the Gospel, the biblical truth that God saves his people from their sins, by teaching that the Christian cannot live even for one day without sinning in thought, word, or deed. It contradicts and weakens the spirit of holiness that shines from every page of the Holy Bible, when it teaches that God's work of holiness in the church must wait until the church gets to heaven because of the "remaining corruptions of original sin." It destroys innumerable promises that God has given to the church, promises that the church can overcome sin, the world, the flesh, and the devil. And in doing this, it also limits the power of the Holy One of Israel, making sin infinitely more powerful than the power of his sanctifying grace through his indwelling Holy Spirit.

Every which way it turns, the doctrine of original sin either takes away some glorious truth from the Bible, or it adds some grotesque teaching that contradicts the Bible. It brings confusion to Gospel truth, making the doctrines of mercy, grace, guilt, pardon, and repentance unintelligible. It makes the holy, just, and loving God to be cruel and unjust, and it makes the wicked sinner to be the unfortunate recipient of a nature which he could not avoid. It is a stumbling-block to the church, encouraging many who call themselves Christians to live a life so far below the Bible standard of holiness and true Christianity that they will ultimately fall into a hypocrite's hell. {TOP OF PAGE}

13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, something that no Biblical doctrine could do.

The necessary affirmations of every man's reason testify that the doctrine of original sin is false. But some Christians object that we should not appeal to reason in determining the truth or falseness of doctrines, and that if we do, we will go off into error. There exists, at least among some Christians, the superstition that man's God-given reason cannot be trusted, that it is subversive of the Word of God, and that if we accepted its necessary and irresistible affirmations, the doctrines of the Bible would be overthrown. But just the opposite is true. Man's reason and consciousness are in harmony with the Bible and confirm its teachings.

But how is it that some Christians can actually believe that reason will overthrow the doctrines of the Bible? I answer: by believing doctrines that they know are contradicted by reason, and believing that these doctrines are taught in the Bible. Let's explain: All the truths of the Bible are in harmony with man's reason, his moral nature, and his consciousness. The Scriptures never teach anything which our consciousness and rational moral nature declare to be false, unjust, or impossible. The fundamental truths of Christianity cannot be in manifest contradiction to reason. Yet the doctrine of original sin does contradict reason, reality, and man's irresistible convictions of justice. But Christians have been taught to believe it is a biblical doctrine. At the same time, they are conscious that it contradicts their reason and their convictions of justice. The result is that they think reason is to be distrusted and rejected as an evil that would overthrow the doctrines of the Bible if relied on!

But I repeat what I said in a former chapter: Would those who believe in the doctrine of original sin reject reason if the doctrine of original sin were reasonable? What is the reason that they reject reason when discussing original sin? It is because reason rejects the original sin dogma. If our reason told us that it would be just and righteous for a whole race to be condemned for the sin of one man, they would not object to reason. If our reason told us that the heathen could justly by born sinners, and commit sin necessarily because of an inborn sin nature, and then die in their sins without a knowledge of the Gospel, and go down into hell, they would not object to reason. If reason told us that sin, with its guilt and condemnation, could be passed on in the physical constitution of man, they would not object to reason. If reason told us that a non-moral and non-personal entity called "flesh" could, contrary to its nature, take on personality and moral character, and be sinful, they would not object to reason. No, they object to reason only because they are conscious that the doctrine of original sin is unreasonable.

In effect, the defenders of the doctrine of original sin admit that the doctrine of original sin is unreasonable. For them to say that the testimony of reason should not be admitted is a tacit admission that the necessary affirmations of their own reason testify against the doctrine of original sin.

There are certain self-evident truths, direct perceptions of reason, known to be true to all men. A thing cannot both be and not be. Two contradictory things cannot both be true. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts. Every effect must have a cause. A creation implies a creator. Moral character is non-transferable. There are no proxies in morals. Sin cannot be imputed where it does not exist without injustice. Perfect justice cannot punish the innocent for the guilt of another. Sin is personal and non-transferable. Now all of the above truths are known intuitively. They do not need to be proved. They are direct perceptions of reason, and cannot rationally be denied by any man.

But the doctrine of original sin does deny self-evident truths. It denies the self-evident truth that there can be no proxies in morals and teaches that Adam committed sin for us by proxy. It denies that moral character is non-transferable and teaches that Adam's sinful character was transferred to all his descendants! It denies that sin cannot be imputed where it does not exist without injustice and teaches that the infinitely holy and just God imputed the sin of Adam to all his descendants. It denies that perfect justice cannot punish the innocent for the guilt of another and teaches that God, who is perfect in truth and justice, condemned the whole human race for the sin of Adam.

To say that the doctrine of original sin is unreasonable is a profound understatement. There really never has existed a doctrine so unreasonable, so absurd, and so ridiculous as this doctrine. It is not only absurd, it is plain superstition to believe that we sinned in Adam thousands of years before we were born and began our existence. No man can torture his consciousness into affirming that he existed and sinned thousands of years before he was born. To believe that man's flesh can be inherently sinful and that men can be born sinners is gross superstition. The whole dogma of original sin is a monstrous superstition and a fantastic fiction that is fit only for the pages of some wild science fiction novel.

The doctrine of original sin is clearly unreasonable, and can only be a doctrine of the Bible if the doctrines of the Bible can be unreasonable. But it is both a foolish and a dangerous idea to think that the doctrines of the Bible can be unreasonable. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and as such, it must be reasonable, consistent, and harmonious throughout. If men propound any theory and try to force it on the church as a doctrine of the Word of God, and that doctrine is absurd, unreasonable, and contradictory with other doctrines of the Bible, then it is foolish and wicked to accept it, while rejecting the arguments of reason which show its error.

The Scriptures never teach anything which our consciousness and moral nature declare to be false, unjust, or impossible. The fundamental truths of Christianity cannot be in manifest contradictions to reason, reality, and justice. And yet the original sin dogma does contradict man's reason, man's knowledge of reality, and man's irresistible convictions of justice. {TOP OF PAGE}

Part Four: Insurmountable Problems of a False Doctrine
Chapter Eight: The Great Problem of Original Sin

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen. 18:25

He shall judge the world with righteousness. Psalm 96:13

He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness. Acts 17:31

The one great problem of original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. These innate, God-given convictions affirm to us irresistibly that it is impossible to hold a man responsible for a deed that he did not commit and that was committed thousands of years before he was born and came into existence. So the theologians who defend the theory of original sin have the impossible task of justifying God for doing what their own conscience affirms he could not be just in doing.

The theologians who work so hard to resolve this problem still find it impossible to escape their God-given convictions that the doctrine of original sin does, in fact, involve God in a monstrous injustice. Charles Hodge both recognizes this injustice and evades it in the same sentence:

It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justice and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born, and a benevolent rational being is good in the universal judgment of men, whether he was so created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment.

This, then how to reconcile the justice and goodness of God with the doctrine of original sin is the great, omnipresent problem of original sin, a problem that remains to haunt the advocate of original sin even after he has hurriedly dismissed it. Sheldon also calls attention to the problem of the injustice of God involved in the doctrine of original sin. He says:

The same God whose penetrating glance burns away every artifice with which a man may enwrap himself, and reaches at once to the naked reality, is represented as swathing His judgment with a gigantic artifice, in that He holds countless millions guilty of a trespass which He knows was committed before their personal existence, and which they could no more prevent than they could hinder the fiat of creation. If this is justice, then justice is a word of unknown meaning.

Strong admits quite frankly that he is not completely satisfied with the theories of original sin. He says:

We must grant that no one, even of these later theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show that the last of them the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam's natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are naturally and organically one explains the largest number of facts, is least open to objections, and is most accordant with Scripture.

The fact is that the irresistible convictions of justice in the hearts of all men reject the teachings of the doctrine of original sin. Consider the following:

1. If Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," means born with a sinful nature and under the wrath of God because of that nature which the advocates of the doctrine of original sin teach then it follows that every child who dies in infancy goes to hell where he must forever suffer the awful punishment and wrath of God.

But Christians will not accept this. I have not found a Christian yet who will accept that babies who die go to hell. But this text, which they themselves use to prove original sin, could not help but teach that babies who die go to hell where they will suffer God's wrath in never-ending punishment. If babies really are born "by nature the children of wrath," then they must go to hell if they die in such a state. But why is it that Christians cannot accept that babies who die go to hell? Because they know it would be a monstrous and cruel injustice to send innocent little babies to hell. And, of course, they are right. God would never send innocent little babies to hell. However, this is what Eph. 2:3 necessarily teaches if it teaches the doctrine of original sin. This problem with Eph. 2:3 points up once again the insurmountable problem with original sin, which is that it conflicts with our God-given convictions of justice, making God unjust.

2. If Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," means that even unborn children in their mother's womb are sinners, then it follows that all the multiplied millions of children who have been aborted, along with all stillbirths, are in hell where they will suffer its torments throughout all eternity for "their part" in the sin of Adam.

3. If Heb. 7:9-10, "Levi...paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him" means that in Adam all mankind sinned because they were in his loins when he transgressed, which is the teaching of the advocates of original sin, then it follows that the Lord Jesus Christ also sinned in Adam. This is a blasphemous thought, which no Christian can allow, but something that would have to be true if all of human nature was corrupted in Adam when he sinned.

But if this theory is true, then we might suppose that there will be myriads of souls who will never be born, but who nevertheless existed as seed in the loins of Adam, and who will go to hell because they sinned in Adam, even though they never will be born! Why not! Is this so astonishing? If the advocates of original sin can believe that all of humanity sinned in Adam before they were born and began their existence, why can they not see that all the souls who never will be born and never will exist also sinned in him, because they were seed in his loins and potential souls when he sinned? There is no greater problem with the latter than with the former! And if the later is impossible and absurd, so is the former!

4. Another problem is man's idea of an "age of accountability." This idea is completely inconsistent with the idea of original sin. Yet I have never known a Christian who believed in original sin who did not also believe in an "age of accountability." But the two cannot exist together because the doctrine of original sin forbids that children wait until they reach a certain age before they become accountable. According to original sin, we are accountable and guilty for Adam's sin at birth! This leaves no room for a child to come to the "age of accountability" because he is already accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth. In other words, he has reached the "age of accountability" when he is only an innocent little baby.

The idea of an "age of accountability" is completely inconsistent with the doctrine of original sin. Those who have the idea of the one must give up the idea of the other. The two cannot consist together.

But Christians will not give up the idea of an "age of accountability." Why? Because of their irresistible convictions of justice. The conviction that a child cannot be accountable for his actions until he knows the difference between right and wrong is the universal judgment of all men, and this judgment repudiates the doctrine of original sin, which teaches that babies are accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth.

5. The idea of free moral agency is also inconsistent with the doctrine of original sin. Men cannot sin unavoidably because of an inborn sin nature and be free at the same time. If we are born with a sinful nature which makes sin unavoidable, then we are not free. Nor are we moral agents because moral agency implies freedom. Yet I have never known a Christian who believed in original sin who did not believe also that he was a free moral agent. But to be consistent, those who believe in the doctrine of original sin must give up the idea that they are free moral agents, for if we sin unavoidably because of an inborn sin nature, we cannot be free. But Christians will not give up the idea that they are free moral agents. Why? Because of their irresistible convictions that they must be free, meaning able to obey God and do right, or they cannot justly be held accountable for their actions.

6. The doctrine of original sin so clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust.

I remember that, soon after I was converted, I began testifying and preaching in missions, jails, and on street corners. I preached that men are born sinners because that is what I had heard others preach, and I remember that at the time I felt uneasy telling people that they were sinners because they were born sinners. Why? It was because I knew intuitively that we could not be to blame for being born sinners. I was preaching that men were born sinners, even though it conflicted with my irresistible convictions of justice.

Also, recently I heard an old preacher preaching on original sin. He preached the standard sermon, using the standard proof-texts. Then he concluded his sermon almost facetiously with the words, "When I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God all about this." In this way, he tacitly acknowledged his consciousness of the obvious injustice of the original sin doctrine. The very advocates of this doctrine cannot escape their God-given convictions that it is unjust.

7. It is a remarkable fact that there are several conflicting theories of original sin instead of just one. Why is this? The reason is founded in the great problem of original sin: Man's reason testifies that it is unjust. And so, several different theories have been formulated, and have come down to us, each one proposing to have the best legal basis upon which God might be just in condemning the whole human race for the sin of one man. This brings us to the discussion of a theory we have not mentioned up until now, the Arminian Theory of original sin. This theory was formulated by Arminius in the early part of the 17th century and was a reaction to the injustice perceived in the Augustinian theory of original sin. Arminius taught that babies are not guilty for the sin of Adam. They inherit a depraved nature from Adam, but God bestows upon each individual at the dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit sufficient to counteract the effect of their inherited depravity and make obedience possible. So that men are able to obey God if they will cooperate with the special influence of the Holy Spirit. Under his theory, men are guilty only when they consciously and voluntarily commit sin.

Like Arminius did, preachers, Sunday school teachers, and Christians in general make up their own brand of original sin because of compelling convictions of its injustice. For instance, Augustine taught that infants who die without baptism are damned, but this teaching is too offensive to the conscience of most Christians. So they teach a different brand of original sin or remain silent upon this point that is so repulsive to the conscience. They use all the standard proof-texts, such as Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," to prove the doctrine of original sin, but are either unaware of the implications this has for infants who die or come up with a brand of original sin in which babies are not accountable and guilty for original sin until they reach the "age of accountability." They invent a new brand of original sin because their convictions of justice tell them that children cannot be guilty before they actually sin. They are ignorant that the doctrine of original sin makes children "by nature the children of wrath" from the time they are born. They are unaware of the implications and inconsistencies of what they believe and teach. They are teaching what they have been taught, and since they can quote some proof-texts from the Bible, they feel they are on firm ground. They are unaware of the fact that their irresistible convictions of the unjustness of the original sin doctrine has compelled them to come up with a brand new kind of original sin that could only be true if the dogma of original sin were false!

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:9

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. I Tim. 2:4. {TOP OF PAGE}

Chapter Nine: Original Sin Makes God Inconsistent and Imperfect

In Chapter 7 we saw thirteen reasons why the doctrine of original sin is false. In Chapter 8 we saw that the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. In this chapter we will see that if the doctrine of original sin were true, it would destroy the very idea of a perfect and eternally unchanging God. It would make God inconsistent with himself.

First, let's state three irrefutable facts about God:

1. God desires the salvation of all of humanity. 2. But he, in fact, has chosen to save only a part of humanity. 3. God is consistent.

The variable that explains the difference between the all that God desires to save and the some he decides to save must lie outside of God or he would be inconsistent and could not be God. This fact is as certain as the three irrefutable facts stated above are certain. God, who is consistent, cannot desire the salvation of all of humanity and allow any to be lost unless the reason for this lies outside of his choice and his control. If the choice lies with God alone, he most certainly will save all because he desires the salvation of all. However, the fact is God does not save all because he cannot save all, or even some, unless they of their own free will submit to the conditions he has laid down in his Word.

Therefore, the doctrine of original sin with its teaching that man is unable to repent of sin and believe the Gospel because of natural depravity is false. For it would make God the only variable in the salvation of man and therefore, make him inconsistent with himself desiring to save all, while at the same time desiring not to save all; regenerating and enabling some to believe and repent, while at the same time, contrary to his will, leaving others in their state of depravity and inability to be lost. If the doctrine of original sin were true, the salvation of all men would depend solely upon the arbitrary choice of God, and God would be imperfect and inconsistent, desiring the salvation of all mankind but arbitrarily choosing to damn myriads of the souls he did not will should perish.

The variable is and must be in man. And if the variable is in man, then man must be able to respond to God, which means that men cannot be born with a nature that makes it impossible for them to repent and believe the Gospel. Any interpretation of the Bible which puts the variable in God alone is false. For if God were the only variable in man's salvation, then God, who desires the salvation of all men, would certainly save all men!

The fact that God desires to save all but saves only some demonstrates that the variable for the salvation of men resides in the free choice of man and not in some arbitrary election of God. Man, therefore, is not born with a natural inability to obey God. He is not and cannot be born a sinner. We see, then, that the doctrine of original sin and all its sister doctrines the doctrine of natural inability to obey God, the doctrine of the need of a physical regeneration by God before sinners can believe and repent, and the doctrine of an arbitrary election and reprobation by God are all proven to be false doctrines by the fact that God desires the salvation of all, but only saves some.

Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. I John 4:2, 3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:14  {TOP OF PAGE}

Chapter 10: Jesus was a MAN

If the doctrine of original sin is true, one of two things must be true: either Jesus was born a sinner, or he was not a man. Now, the Bible is clear on both points. Jesus was a man, and he was without sin. We know, therefore, that the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh as deceivers and antichrists. What does it mean to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It means to deny that Jesus was a man, with a flesh and blood body like other men. Are there any people today who deny that Christ has come in the flesh? Yes, all those who believe in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human flesh must either believe that Christ, who came in human flesh, was born a sinner or they must deny that he came in the flesh.

It is a serious error to deny the deity of Christ. One cannot be a Christian and deny his deity. John taught that it is equally serious to deny the humanity of Christ:

Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come. I John 4:3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7

John wrote his epistles, condemning those "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" because of the teaching of the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a syncretic religion that combined Christianity with eastern religion, pagan philosophies, and the doctrines of mysticism and gnosis. They denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh because of their philosophical belief that matter is evil. So according to their belief, if Jesus had come with a real human body, he would have been sinful. They denied the real incarnation of Christ, his bodily sufferings on the cross, and his bodily resurrection because of their view that man's material body and all material things are polluted and sinful. They denied that he came in the flesh to save him from sin. His fleshly manifestations were not real but only apparent.

It was from the teachings of gnosticism, with its pagan philosophical belief that all material things are essentially evil, that the doctrine of original sin was born. Augustine, the father of the doctrine of original sin, was for many years a disciple of the Manichaeans, which was a Gnostic sect. His doctrine of physical moral depravity and of inherited physical sinfulness had its roots in the teachings of gnosticism.

Why is all of this important? Because the Bible teaches that Jesus was a man and that he came in the flesh. However, the doctrine of original sin teaches that man, his flesh, and his bodily nature are corrupted and sinful because of Adam's transgression. It is impossible to believe the doctrine of man's inherited bodily sinfulness without either believing that Jesus was born a sinner or that he was not a man. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, either Jesus was born a sinner or he was not a man! Jesus was a man. He did come in the flesh, and he was without sin. Therefore the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. II John 7-11

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. I John 4:2-6

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:14

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. I John 5:4

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. I John 5:18.  {TOP OF PAGE}

Chapter 11: Can Christians Live Without Sin?

It is hard to understand how a thinking person can read the Bible and still believe in original sin. The Bible commands men to depart from all sin, to keep God's commandments, to be holy because God is holy, and to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. The Bible teaches that all men ought to live without sin and that they can live without sin by God's grace and the power of his indwelling Holy Spirit. The Bible also teaches that Christians do live without sin and overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil.

But the doctrine of original sin contradicts the Bible and teaches that no man, not even the Christian, can live without committing sin:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. Westminster Confession.

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated. Westminster Confession.

They deplore their inability to love their Redeemer, to keep themselves from sin, to live a holy life in any degree adequate to their own convictions of their obligations...They recognize it as the fruit and evidence of the corruption of their nature derived as a sad inheritance from their first parents. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 273

...whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Larger Catechism.

No man is able...by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed. Larger Catechism

Anyone who has read much of God's Word knows that the above declarations are altogether foreign to the Bible. The Bible teaches that the believer can live without sin. Its pages are filled with promises to the believer that he can live a holy life and have victory over sin, temptation, the world, the flesh, and the devil:

Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matt. 1:21

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:34, 36

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. I John 5:4

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6.

And we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. I John 5:18

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:6

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 24, 25

Now, who are we going to believe? Will we accept the uncertain declarations of mere men or will we accept the sure Word of God? If, after all that God has said and promised in his Holy Book, it is still impossible to live without sin, then God is a liar, deceitful, and insincere. Surely, if it is impossible to live without sin, God knows it! Yet he promises victory over sin. He commands holiness and Christian perfection. "Be ye holy, for I am holy." I Peter 1:15. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as you father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48. Would God command us to walk in Christian holiness and Christian perfection if he knew it was impossible for us? I cannot believe it! Do those who propagate the evil doctrine of original sin know its implications on the character of God? If God knows that we can't obey him, if he knows that we are born with a corrupt sinful nature which makes obedience impossible, then he is insincere and deceitful in commanding us to do what he knows is impossible. And if God knows that we are born with a sinful nature that makes sin necessary, then all his promises of grace and power to keep us from sin are lies.

God cannot lie. It is the doctrine of original sin which is a lie! For the Word of God reveals that God has always had his saints. He has always had a people that feared him, loved him, and kept his commandments. He has always had a people that did not break his commandments daily in thought, word, and deed: There was Job, of whom God said, "A perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil." There was Enoch who "walked with God" and "was not, for God took him." There was Zacharias and Elizabeth who "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." There was John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. There was Joseph who was sold into Egypt, but who loved his brethren who sold him into Egypt, and kept himself pure in the matter of Potiphar's wife. There was Daniel who was taken captive to Babylon, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and all the holy prophets and holy apostles, and all the saints of both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly teaches that God's people can and do live without sin. Therefore, the doctrine of original sin, which teaches otherwise, is a myth and a lie.

The four Scripture verses quoted earlier in this chapter (I John 3:6, I John 3:9, I John 5:4, I John 5:18) clearly teach that Christians do not have to commit sin. They show that there is no original sin, no corrupt sinful nature that makes sin necessary in the life of the Christian. Two of these verses have been very difficult for Christians to understand. They are I John 3:6 and I John 3:9. I John 3:6 seems to teach that anyone who commits sin never really knew God in the first place, and I John 3:9 seems to teach that it is absolutely impossible for the Christian to commit sin. An understanding of the tenses of the Greek verb does away with this misunderstanding.

In I John 3:6 the verb form menon is a present participle which emphasizes continuing action. It means is abiding or is remaining. The verb form hamartanei is the present active. It can denote either continuous or simple action. It means sins or is sinning. Next, the verb form hamartanon is used. It is a present participle which denotes continuous action. It means is sinning. The last two verb forms in I John 3:6 are heoraken and egnoken. They are both perfect active. The perfect denotes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. So that heoraken means seen and continued to see and egnoken means known and continued to know. I John 3:6, then, has the following meaning:

"Whosoever is remaining in him sins not; whosoever is sinning has not seen him and continued to see him, neither known him and continued to know him."

So the fact that a Christian may commit sin does not mean that he never really knew God. What it does mean is that by committing sin, he is not continuing to abide in Christ, and by committing sin, he does not continue to see and know Christ, whom he once saw and knew. You cannot sin against God and remain in him at the same time. You cannot sin against God and continue to see and know him at the same time.

In I John 3:9 the verb form gegennemenos is a perfect passive participle which emphasizes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. It means has been born and continues to be born. The verb forms poiei, menei, and dunatai are all present active which denotes continuous or simple action in the present. The meaning of each one, respectively, is: do or is doing, remain or is remaining, and can or is able. The verb form hamartanein is a present infinitive which emphasizes continuous action. It means to continue to sin or to go on sinning. The verb form gegennetai is the perfect passive. It denotes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. It means has been born and continues to be born. I John 3:9, then has the following meaning:

"Whosoever has been born of God and continues to be born of God does not do sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot continue to sin, because he has been born of God and continues to be born of God."

This verse does not teach that it is impossible for the Christian to sin. What it does teach is that it is impossible to stand begotten of God and go on sinning. The born-again experience and the committing of sin are self-excluding. One cannot exist where the other exists. If you have the seed of God in you and if you stand begotten of God, you cannot commit sin. If you commit sin, you cannot stand begotten of God.

These two verses militate mightily against the doctrine of original sin. They teach that the Christian who remains in Christ and continues to see and know Christ and continues to stand begotten of God both does not and cannot sin. Surely if it is true that "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not," then there is no original sin, no corrupt Adamic sin nature in the Christian that makes it necessary for the Christian to commit sin. If it is true that "Whatsoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God," then surely there is no indwelling sin in the Christian that makes sin necessary and obedience to God's commandments impossible.

God testifies that "His commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." I John 5:3, 4. If "The commandments of God are not grievous..." and if "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world..." then there can be no original sin that makes God's commandments grievous and that makes them so impossible to keep that believers cannot overcome the world. The commandments of God are not grievous. They are not more than we can bear. They do not require what is impossible for us to do.

No, God is not a hard taskmaster. He requires of us only what we are able to do. If we had a sin nature which made it impossible for us to serve and obey him, he would not command: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." He would not say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." But God does command us to be holy. He does require us to be perfect. So either God is requiring impossibilities and he has commandments that are grievous, or there is no original sin.

I John 3:6 and 3:9 also militate mightily against the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" and "once a child of God, always a child of God." Those who believe that once you are saved, you can never be lost equate physical birth and spiritual birth, and say, "I may be a disobedient child of my father, but I will forever remain my father's child." They seem not to realize that everything that is true about physical birth is no