RETURN TO RELIGION PAGE | E-MAIL ME

THE PROBLEM WITH ORIGINAL SIN.

One of the foundational principles of modern Christianity, behind the deity of Christ, the atonement, and the resurrection, is the concept known today as "original sin." A tradition from the earliest days of the Roman church, original sin is the idea that because of Adam's fall, every human since Adam is born "into" sin and so, like a genetic defect spread from generation to generation, every man and women is already sinful from the moment of conception, and so are born condemned from the beginning. Even before we take our first step or coo our first syllable, eternal separation from God is already upon us, all because of Adam's single moment of careless disobedience.

All is not as bleak as it appears, however, for fortunately, Christ's atoning death on the cross breaks the power of this curse, restoring us to the Father through Christ's obedience unto death. Therefore, just as through one man—Adam—sin entered into the world, so through another man—Christ—the curse of sin is taken away. Christ's sacrifice cancels this sin debt we are born into, restoring us spiritually and bringing eternal life for those willing to embrace that forgiveness. That, in a nutshell, is the basic thrust of the original sin idea. Because of a single action of one man, all humanity is cursed. There is no choice in the matter; that is simply the way it is. And, of course, who could argue with the notion that we do, indeed, live in a fallen world awash in sin in which corruption and wickedness abound? As such, isn't this theory of original sin self-evident? Isn't this the clear teaching of scripture?

It is my conjecture that it is not. Additionally, it is also my opinion that the entire concept is not only lacking any solid, scriptural support, but is in fact, lacking from both a rational and moral standpoint. Before we examine this idea more closely, however, a quick history of where the idea of original sin comes from may be in order, for from it we find some interesting variables at work.

Interestingly, the idea of original sin did not originate with the Bible specifically, but is a later teaching of the church. While the idea of being born of corruptible seed goes back to the earliest Bible times, it was not clearly defined and articulated until around the fourth century, when Saint Augustine made it element of his faith structure. Finding significant acceptance in the church at large, it soon became an element of Roman Catholicism, resulting in the Catholic practice of infant baptism. Later, it was reintroduced in Protestant circles some twelve centuries later by John Calvin, one of the most influential theologians of the sixteenth century, until today it has become a basic tenant of Christianity through the vehicle of "Calvinism" (although it is not universally embraced by all Christians. Arminianism, for example—the counter to Calvinism—does not hold to the concept of original sin though it does, of course, acknowledge the existence and destructiveness of sin in a fallen world).

Of course, the problem with this idea is that it redefines sin from being something we do to being something we are. In other words, infants are sinners not because of something they've done, but simply by the mere fact of their existence. But is this what the Bible really teaches? Are we already doomed from the moment of birth, destined to die in our sins apart from the atoning blood of Christ?

Consider the dilemma this idea of original sin puts us in. We are born, not as an act of our own will but due to circumstances entirely beyond our control, into a particular culture at a specific point in history. Some of us, if we are born "lucky", arrive into a time and place of enlightenment, while others find themselves thrust into a world of darkness and superstition. Neither circumstance, however, is better than the other, for we are already tainted goods, so to speak, awash in sin and doomed from birth as unregenerate sinners. Whether we are born to kindly, altruistic parents who spend their lives for the betterment of others or to brutal, self-absorbed pagans makes no difference; we are still eternally condemned.

Obviously, no one can deny that we live in a world of corruption, pain, and hatred. If we refrained from doing half the things we do out of selfishness and greed, the world would be a much better place, so obviously the world is "broken" in some ways and desperately in need of repair. The real question in this case isn't whether Christ's death at Calvary paves the way towards fixing what's wrong in our world, nor is there any argument per se with the idea that we live in a "fallen" world (however one cares to define "fallen"); the real question is whether we live in a fallen world because we must sin, and whether we have the capacity not to sin at all. While this may seem on the surface to be a minor point, it is extraordinarily important, for if we do not have the capacity to resist sin because of being born into it, the entire question of divine judgment is brought into question, and with it the underpinnings of the entire Christian faith.

Therefore, for the concept of original sin to remain consistent, we must be forced to conclude that the child who dies in infancy is eternally lost because of this genetic "defect" called sin. To overlook their sinfulness, even if it isn't fully matured and manifested, would be a slap in the face of justice, for God cannot overlook some sin while holding others accountable for theirs. Therefore it is only just that the child be condemned along with the war criminal, for both have slipped out of this world without Christ.

Yet a part of us realize how viciously unjust holding an innocent responsible for their sinfulness really is, and so few Christians seriously imagine the infant spends an eternity in hell (although there are those who still do, which remains the rationale behind infant baptism within Catholicism.) To overcome this difficulty, most maintain that God's grace extends to the innocents as an element of grace outside themselves as a sort of "original salvation". That is, God does not hold those incapable of distinguishing right from wrong responsible for their sins, so the child who dies in infancy (or, presumably, through the first few years of life) would be immediately ushered into the presence of God ("for such is the kingdom of God made up of such as these.")

Now, while this takes care of the immediate problem, it creates two others at the same time. First, does this presumed grace also cover children who are cognizant of sinning yet are still not old enough to truly understand the eternal implications their sinning produces and, secondly, doesn't this repudiate the idea of original sin in its entirety by its mere reality? In other words, if original sin is canceled by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, at what point does it become destructive to one's salvation? The problem is if everyone is born essentially forgiven, then they must by necessity lose that salvation at some ill-defined later point in life. Therefore, it appears that if we are to take this line of reason to its logical conclusion, we are not born into sin—as original sin demands—but into original sinlessness—precisely the opposite of what is taught. However, the two concepts are mutually incompatible and contradictory. Either an infant is saved, or he is not; he cannot be both.

The next problem the original sin advocates must define is what, precisely, is meant by sin? If by sin, one means those decisions we make that run contrary to our moral nature or that are in some way displeasing to God, then in which way is a child capable of sinning? If, however, when one speaks of sin they are talking of our selfish nature—of which a wailing infant is a prime example—then I'm afraid we must be talking nonsense. The assumption that all selfishness is sinful is pure rubbish; in an infant, in fact, selfishness is nothing more than a normal, necessary requirement for its very survival. A newborn is aware only of itself and its needs; its cries for food and comfort are vital for it to survive. Later, as a toddler, it may manifest selfishness in the form of fighting over possessions or attention from parents, but this too is not easily defined as sinful selfishness anymore than an adult stopping a burglar in their home from stealing their possessions is evidence of selfishness or a woman wanting her husband to spend more time (within reason) with her could be seen as selfishness. The burglar has no more "right" to another man's possessions than one toddler has the "right" to another child's favorite stuffed animal. One would not normally consider a man confronting a burglar a sin anymore than we should consider a child clinging to his bear while another child tries to wrestle it from him to be a sin.

Sin, then, is not something we are born with like blue eyes or blond hair, but is a natural consequence of having been born with a moral conscience. It is the aberration of the norm—those things we do that we know we ought not to—that is developed over a lifetime. Sin, then, is a nasty habit we fall into, much like tobacco or drug abuse. No one is born addicted to Cocaine ("crack" babies being the exception) or smoking two packs of cigarettes a day; it is a habit they must develop over a lifetime. Like sin, addictions also lead us down the road to destruction (in these cases physical, emotional, or financial ruin) while sin leads you down the road to spiritual destruction. Also like a bad habit, the more one sins, the more comfortable they grow with it until finally, in the end, they are-as Paul said-a "slave to sin."

What Christ came to save us from, then, was not "original sin", but "habitual sin"—the type that eats away at your soul over decades until it finally destroys you utterly and completely. Therefore, the infant, the very young, and the severely retarded, are no more "sinners" than a hamster is capable of being one. Their moral natures and, hence, their sin nature, is not yet realized or matured; God's grace, then, is not necessary for such as these for there is no "sin" in them in any real sense of the word.

Where did these gentlemen get their ideas about original sin? Most point to several passages in the Bible where writers such as King David confess to "being sinners from their birth, conceived in sin" and Paul writing of being the "chief among sinners." Augustine apparently warmed up to the idea because of his own wicked pre-conversion life, considering himself worthless from birth. In every case, though, we are dealing not with the words of God but with contrite hearts—men so aghast at their own sinfulness that they imagine they were always sinners, even from birth. It's a type of mistaken humility and evidence of a truly repentant heart to imagine one has always been "bad to the bone" from the moment of their conception; it is simply a way of amplifying or—if you prefer—exaggerating ones sorrow for their transgressions. This idea is further exemplified by Old Testament statements that "...every inclination of his [man's] heart is evil from childhood" (Gen. 8:21 NIV) which, while often true, does not demonstrate original sin. A heart may become wicked just as easily as it can be born wicked; in fact, that seems to be the normally observed process. While this process often begins in childhood, where humans first become aware of their moral nature and begin transgressing it, it does not say they were born that way. It is simply pointing out at what point bad habits begin to take root: in childhood.

Other references to mankind's sinfulness are mostly variations on this theme. Man is born innocent, and then falls into sin as he or she matures physically and intellectually. Only through the most biased reading of scripture can the case for original sin be made, and even then it is more a matter of tradition and dogma than sound exegesis. For us to be held accountable for our sins, we must have the capacity not to sin, otherwise, we are no more responsible for the things we do than a predator is morally liable for tracking, killing and eating its prey. To be born a sinner makes us already guilty before we've even taken our first step. Man may be born with the potential to sin (and, in fact, may be almost impelled to sin), but he is not born a "sinner" for sinning is an act we do; not a condition we inherit.

(Note: my views on the nature of sin and God's forgiveness has changed since I first penned these words several years ago. I only include it here as a counter to fundamentalist arguments from an Evangelical perspective that some of my readers may find helpful.)

TOP | RELIGION PAGE | HOME