Original Sin

In Christendom, the doctrine of Original Sin is not controversial. There have been notable Christians whom have denied it such as Pascal and presently Swinburne, but there hasn't been any significant group of Christians who deny it. To deny the doctrine is to easily fall into the Pelegian heresy. However, many of my friends are members of the International Church of Christ, and they deny Original Sin, and though they're not a significant portion of Christendom, they're significant to me simply because many of my friends are members, and so I want to dedicate a couple posts to the topic. In this first post, biblical data will be the focus.

The strongest Biblical support for Original Sin is found in Romans 5:12-19, which reads (NIV), "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Emphasis mine.)

The same idea is expressed in 1st Corinthians 15:21-22, which reads, "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

One can find additional support in the Psalms, or in the cursing of Adam in Genesis and a verse here or there, but clearly Romans is the strongest. It is difficult to raise the charge of taking Romans out of context because I have quoted entire paragraphs. If I had just cited only a verse or two, such an accusation seems to carry more prima facie weight to it, but that is not what I have done here. It seems to be a running theme in the paragraphs I quoted, and it appropriately fits in with the more more broad theme of our salvation. 

A foreseeable objection is that we have inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, but not necessarily his guilt. Like a child who suffers his drunken father but is not responsible for his drunkenness, so too we are victims of the same kind. This isn't entirely false. Anyone who holds to Original Sin agrees we do suffer the consequences, but it doesn't end there. So, at this point, we can ask, Why do you think this is the only thing you inherit and nothing else? The burden then is on them. But there are more difficulties. This interpretation doesn't fit the passage in Romans, for God does not just relive us from the consequences of Adam's sin, but to give us grace, to save us from condemnation, to justify us, and to make us righteous. All this implies, of course, that Adam's sin puts us in that predicament, where it is necessary for a savior from judgment, not impersonal consequences. The passages are about salvation, not discomforts. 

It is also clear that the effects of Adam's sin affect everyone without qualification. The parallel then is that Jesus had to die for everyone, without qualification. This is important because most people I know who deny Original Sin also deny infant baptism. The argument goes that because infants do not have sin, and baptism is a washing away of those sins and a sign of grace, infants need not be baptized. If this is so, then if death is a consequence of Adam's sin, and infants are not affected by their sin, then why can babies die? They shouldn't if they're unscathed by Adam's sin. All death comes from sin, as the beginning of Romans makes clear, then if they have death, then they also have sin. If they want to resort to the guilt-consequences distinction, then the unqualified diagnosis mankind's condition settles this.

This unqualified absolutism is found elsewhere in the bible. The death of Jesus is for everyone, as read in John 3:16. Denying Original Sin necessarily entails the belief that Jesus did not die for everyone, since there were some who did not need saving. In the same chapter, Jesus makes the unqualified condition that unless you are born of water and spirit, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. So absolutely, everyone is affected by Adam's sin, and we are in need of a savior for it.