×

Here’s an email I recently received from a friend:

Trevin,

I have a question for you concerning some readings and discussions in class at my seminary.

Recently, we have discussed the topic of Original Sin in one of my classes. One of my professors doesn’t believe it to be biblical and is sharply critical of how it seems to condone thoughtless actions and attitudes towards others outside the church (although any theology can seem to condone wrong actions towards others. I believe it depends more on the people in this sense, although the theology has an effect). Many in the class disagree. I’ve been leaning away from Original Sin for a while, but I want some perspective on it outside of my seminary.

The view (and the one I lean towards) is that people are not inherently evil. We are all good, but a corrupted sort of good. We make mistakes, we drop the atom bomb, we create Hitler’s, but we aren’t evil, although there are some pretty radically terrible people out there.

This of course makes us wonder about Christ. Why did he die on the cross if we are already good (kinda)? In the readings we are discussing, I would say it points us toward the cross serving a different purpose than we might suppose in the theology of Original Sin…

The cross of Christ is a call and recovery. A call for us to die and live again as the imago Christi. A recovery of truer and more real humanity. Following Christ is a deepening of our humanity, the way God intended us to be in the garden.

My question is: What do you think about all this? I’m asking because I think you will give me a balanced perspective I can bring to my mind and to class discussion. What is your opinion of Original Sin? True, wrong, flawed? Do you have a different view altogether?

My Response

First off, let me affirm you in asking this question. When you say you want some perspective outside of your seminary, I am encouraged. (I’m encouraged when people at my seminary do the same.) It’s important to get perspective outside of one’s immediate circle. Even if you do wind up agreeing with your professor that the doctrine of original sin is unbiblical, at least you will have wrestled through it yourself and not just accepted the teaching outright.

That said, I disagree strongly with your professor on this subject and think that the denial of original sin causes more problems than it solves.

Scripture

The ultimate reason that I believe in the doctrine is because I believe the Scriptures teach it. Exegetically speaking, I don’t think you can properly interpret Romans 5 without seeing something like original sin. Paul does not explicitly explain how Adam’s sin and humanity’s sins are connected, but it is hard to understand Romans 5 without seeing that Paul is presupposing a link.

I admit that the doctrine we call “original sin” is a theological construct. No passage comes right out and says “Christians believe in original sin.” Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of original sin is constructed by putting together important passages that are best understood through the lens of original sin.

But the fact that we have this theological construct does not mean it’s unbiblical. Instead, the doctrine provides a synthesis that best explains what the Bible says.

I suppose you are familiar with the biblical passages that seem to support the traditional understanding. I won’t take the time to list them all. There are other good reasons to believe in original sin.

Church History

I believe church history got this one right, especially regarding the debates between Augustine and Pelagius. Church history is not infallible, but one should not dismiss quickly the teachings of the church through the centuries.

There are times the church has proven very fallible (think medieval Roman Catholicism, indulgences, infant baptism etc.). On this issue, however, the overall consensus of the church has been right. The Western Church speaks of original sin and total depravity as twin sides. (I understand that the Western explanation differs slightly from Eastern Orthodoxy, but both wings of the church agree at a substantive level that every single individual is a sinner and has a sin nature.)

Beautiful Truth

I believe that original sin is a beautiful truth. (Not that sin is beautiful, but that the doctrine – precisely because it is true – has beautiful facets that deserve consideration.) Upon first looking at it, it seems rather stark. We’re sinners. We are depraved. We are born with a corrupt nature. But I am encouraged by many aspects of this teaching.

1. “Original Sin” gives hope to losers

Let me quote  from Alan Jacobs’ marvelous book, Original Sin: A Cultural History:

“The Pelagian good news is that at every moment you are free to obey; the (unstated, hidden) bad news is that every moment you are equally free to sin, and at the instant of choice a lifetime of strict spiritual discipline will avail you nothing…”

“Pelagianism, like many zealous movements of moral and spiritual reform, writes a recipe for profound anxiety. Its original word of encouragement (“You can do it!”) immediately yields to the self-doubting question: ‘But am I doing it?'”

“By contrast, Augustine’s emphasis on the universal depravity of human nature – seen by so many then and now as an insult to human dignity – is curiously liberating. I once heard a preacher encourage his listeners to begin a prayer with the following words: ‘Lord, I am the failure that you always knew I would be.’ It is the true Augustinian note. Pelagianism is a creed for heroes, but Augustine’s emphasis on original sin and the consequent absolute dependence of every one of us on the grace of God gives hope to the waverer, the backslider, the slacker, the putz, the schlemiel. We’re all in the same boat as Mister Holier-than-Thou over there, saved only by the grace that comes to us in Holy Baptism…”

2.Original Sin” puts us all on the same level before God.

During his preaching ministry, evangelist George Whitefield became friends with Selina, the Countess of Huntingdon. But his preaching on sin – precisely the truth that we are all affected by original sin – repulsed her. She wrote him:

“It is monstrous to be told you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. This is highly offensive and insulting; and I cannot but wonder that your ladyship should relish any sentiment so much at variance with high rank and good breeding.”

This kind of egalitarianism is what is so beautiful about original sin. The common people who heard Whitefield’s preaching wept at his teaching about sin. Why? Because Whitefield told them that, though they were sinners, God loved them. He called them to repentance, just as he calls everyone else to repentance, even the king and queen. The message of repentance is for all.

So, in the end, it’s not “original goodness” that makes us value other human beings, but “original sin”, because it levels us and puts us all on the same playing field. We’re all cut down to size, from the prince to the pauper, the rich to the poor, the educated to the illiterate.

3.Original Sin” gives us tools to respect others.

Tim Keller makes a good point. The doctrine of original sin (together with the doctrine of the imago Dei) gives us the tools with which to respect people.

Because we believe that the image of God is in every human being, we know that they are better than their wrong beliefs. And because everyone is a sinner, we know that we Christians are worse than our right beliefs. People who are wrong about Jesus are not as bad as they could be. And we who are right about Jesus are not as good as we could be.

Original sin does not deny that we were created with the image of God. It only says that the image is tainted or shattered. Original sin does not deny the value of humanity.

4. “Original Sin” explains the need for Christ’s death.

I agree that following Christ is a deepening of our humanity. We become more human as we grow in sanctification because Christ is the True Human – the greatest reflection of all God intends for humanity.

The problem with excising original sin from this picture is that it neutralizes the power of the cross. It makes the cross a call to new life, but not something that actually accomplishes anything. It’s a call to new life, rather than a gift of new life. The cross says, “Be better.”

For those who deny original sin, the cross is about making (kinda) good people better. In the traditional understanding, the cross is about making dead people live.

I need God to swoop in and change me and save me himself. I can’t save myself. I am so wicked. I know my heart. I know my thoughts. The last thing I need is a checklist. I need to be revived first and then set about to new tasks.

So I take great comfort in original sin. It rings true with the biblical witness and with my human experience.

We are rebellious sinners, but God loves us anyway. That’s a lot better than saying, “We aren’t really as bad as we think we are, and God does love us.” God’s love for me is greater and more impressive because I know how bad I am than by my making myself seem better.

LOAD MORE
Loading