Popular Beliefs: Original Sin I. Introduction A. Let us spend some time looking at popular beliefs of our day 1. If we are going to be able to preach the Word to others, we must know what they may believe! 2. Even if a person is not religious, s/he may have a view of Christianity based on denominational doctrines 3. We must be prepared to make a defense of the truth (1 Peter 3:15) B. Let us spend some time today looking at the doctrine of original sin 1. How did it come about? 2. How is it defended? 3. What are its complications? 4. What do the Scriptures really say? C. Let us now explore this doctrine II. The Origins of Original Sin A. The doctrine of original sin does not originate in the Bible or in the first century B. Two of the early patristic authors, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, explicitly establish the innocence of children (Against Heresies 4.28.3, Stromata 4.25) C. The origins of original sin come about in the late third and fourth centuries, with Augustine of Hippo being the principal expositor of the doctrine D. The doctrine of original sin comes about for a couple of reasons 1. Justification of infant baptism a. Original sin, to this day, under girds the concept of infant baptism b. If everyone is born into sin, everyone is liable to the sentence of condemnation, even infants c. Nevertheless, the concept of infant baptism came first, and original sin later 2. Reaction to Pelagianism a. Some, especially in the fourth century, were perceived as taking free will too far, and were advocating an idea that man is inherently good b. Reaction to this belief went the other way, attempting to establish that man is in no way at all good, and born into that condition E. Thus began the concept of original sin that has persevered to this day III. Original Sin: The Doctrine and Its Defense A. What is original sin? 1. Original sin is the belief that not only is man born into a world of sin, he actually is born with sin against him, inherited from Adam 2. Since the Fall in Genesis 3, the sin of Adam has been inherited by all who are his children, and therefore all men, women, and children are in sin B. This belief is mainly defended by four passages 1. Exodus 20:5: God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children 2. Psalm 51:5: David's expression of his sinfulness 3. Romans 3:23: "all men" have sinned 4. Romans 5:12-17: sin and death through Adam C. In a moment we will consider other passages from the Bible and attempt to harmonize all of these ideas D. First, let us consider the complications that ensued from "original sin" IV. Original Sin: Complications A. A major complication of the doctrine of original sin is Jesus of Nazareth 1. After all, Luke 3:38 establishes that Jesus is a son of Adam 2. If all the children of Adam have sin against them, that would mean that Jesus of Nazareth was Himself born with sin against Him! B. This complication was acutely felt by the proponents of the doctrine C. The result: the "Immaculate Conception," not just of Jesus, but also of Mary 1. Not just Jesus, but His mother Mary also, is given an exception to the rule 2. Both are considered to have been born without the stain of original sin D. The Scriptures, of course, say nothing regarding any of this E. It shows what happens when one deviates from the Scriptures, and the constant additions that must be made to justify the deviations 1. Infant baptism leads to original sin 2. Original sin leads to doctrines of immaculate conceptions 3. ...and the Scriptures say nothing about such things! V. The Bible and Original Sin A. Let us now consider what the Scriptures say B. We have already quickly examined the Scriptures provided by those who would advocate the doctrine of original sin C. Let us consider other passages 1. Ezekiel 18:1-22 2. Matthew 18:1-4 3. Mark 9:35-37 D. In these passages, we see inconsistencies between what they say and the doctrine of original sin 1. Ezekiel goes directly against the idea of inherited sin, establishing that the soul who sins dies 2. Jesus establishes the innocence of children, and such an understanding of those passages is validated by second century interpreters E. On the surface, it would seem that we are lost in a hopeless contradiction between the various passages F. Let us seek a reconciliation of the passages G. Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:1-22 1. How can these two passages be reconciled when they seem to say opposite things? 2. There are two means of reconciliation 3. Reconciliation #1: God decides to visit the consequences of iniquity not, necessarily on the first generation, but visits the consequences on a later iniquitous generation a. The Law is clear about the consequences of disobedience to the Law b. Nevertheless, God does not send Israel into exile after the first, second, third, or even fourth generation of iniquity! c. He waits for hundreds of years, hoping for repentance d. Finally, in Israel, in the generation of Hoshea, the people are cast out (2 Kings 17) e. Yet since Hezekiah was king in Judah, and he strove to be faithful, Judah was not yet cast out (2 Kings 18) f. God only cast Judah into exile after three descendants of the faithful Josiah were unfaithful (2 Kings 25) g. Not all the kings felt the consequences of their sin in their own generation, but the consequences were felt by other generations who were iniquitous, and God cannot be charged with injustice 4. Reconciliation #2: Propensity of the children to follow in their fathers' footsteps a. What is the common saying? The apple does not fall far from the tree? b. We can see from experience that sons often follow after their fathers c. Fathers who were good many times will have sons who are good d. Likewise, and perhaps more prevalently, fathers who commit sins, especially against their children, will see that their sons do the same e. It is harder to break this chain than it is to perpetuate it 5. We can see, then, that we can make some sense of these passages, and neither reconciliation concept demands that people are born into sin H. Psalm 51:5 and Matthew 18:1-4/Mark 9:35-37 1. Again, we seem to have a deadlock 2. In this circumstance, we need to consider the contexts to see if there are any mitigating factors 3. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is trying to help His disciples understand the nature of the Kingdom using a child a. While Jesus is speaking in terms of a comparison, if the basis of comparison is not legitimate, neither can Jesus' point be legitimate b. If children are not humble and in a pure state, then to compare a citizen of the Kingdom to a child is an inappropriate comparison 4. In Psalm 51:5, however, we see that David is writing poetry, and highly charged poetry at that a. The introduction to the Psalm indicates that David wrote it after his sin with Bathsheba was exposed b. David is manifestly greatly disturbed by his sin and pours out his heart to God c. In this situation, do we take David as accurately representing his own feelings on account of his sin or the way things are in God's sight? 5. The context of Matthew and Mark seems to demand that children are holy, and yet we see that the context of the Psalm is poetic language that is highly charged 6. The best reconciliation, then, is to understand David as speaking in exaggerated, highly charged language-- hyperbole-- representing his self-image on account of his sin 7. David, then, was not literally a sinner from the womb; he just felt that he was that sinful! 8. We can see, then, that children remain pure, and David's exaggeration does not prove that we are all born in sin I. Romans 3:23 and Matthew 18:1-4/Mark 9:35-37 1. Much is made of Romans 3:23 and Paul's use of the term "all" 2. "All," of course, is interpreted to refer to every single human being regardless of age 3. Is that the way it should be interpreted? 4. Many times in the Scripture, "all" is used in slight hyperbole, establishing that a great number of people are involved 5. Matthew 3:5: did literally all Judea and Jerusalem go out to see John, i.e. every single resident? That is hard to believe! 6. In such cases, we understand that the greater part of the people, but not necessarily every single person, did what was recorded 7. The same is true for "all" in Romans 3:23 8. It is universally admitted that Jesus the Christ did not so sin (Hebrews 7:26); therefore, we already see that not literally all have sinned! 9. Matthew 18:1-4 and Mark 9:35-37 can then stand: Paul is not striving to say that children have sinned in Romans 3:23, but emphasizing how all who are accountable are the ones who have sinned, and such is how we interpret the use of "all" J. Romans 5:12-17 1. To properly understand Romans 5:12-17, we must engage in a deep reading to see what the text actually says and what it does not actually say 2. Nowhere in the passage does it say, as is alleged, that man has inherited actual sin from Adam 3. The text does show that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, and death with it (v. 12), and that death reigned from Adam on (v. 14) 4. Many try to use verses 15-17 to say that men have died from Adam's sin, but the text does not say that; it says that the trespass "brought" condemnation, that death "reigned" through that one man, and that the sin "led" to condemnation 5. We can interpret this passage consistently with the rest we have seen by seeing that Paul proves that sin entered the world and that the world is permeated with sin on account of the Fall, and as a consequence we eventually succumb to the sin that so permeates this world 6. Furthermore, death is in the world because sin is in the world, and as the example of infants dying attests, that one dies is not necessarily an indication that one has actually sinned, but that one lives in a world full of sin! 7. Viewed this way, the passage makes more sense and is consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture K. We have now seen how all the Scriptures used to advocate the position of original sin need not be interpreted to actually promote that doctrine, but can be interpreted so as to be consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture L. In the end, the idea of original sin stands refuted, not present in the Bible but imposed on it for ulterior doctrinal purposes M. The truth of the matter is clear 1. The soul that sins dies-- not just because it is born, but because one knows good from evil and chooses evil (Ezekiel 18) 2. No one inherits sin-- one may inherit a sinful nature, one may inherit a bad set of cards that prompts one to fall into sin more easily than another, but one is only responsible for the sins one commits 3. Small children and infants, along with those with significant mental retardation, do not have the capability of sinning since they do not have the understanding of their actions VI. Conclusion A. We have examined the doctrine of original sin 1. We have seen its origins, what it is, and its complications 2. We have seen that the Scriptures do not teach it and can be understood to show the truth of the situation, that the soul that sins is liable to condemnation B. Let us stand firm for the truth and promote it among those whom we know C. Invitation/songbook D. If you perhaps once believed in original sin, and/or perhaps were sprinkled as a child to ward off sin, be it known that the Bible points to another way 1. The Bible is clear that those who are accountable must believe in Him, repent of sin, and be immersed in water for the remission of past sin to be saved (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) 2. Sprinkling as an infant cannot provide that remission-- do not be found lost on the day of Judgment based on a bad assumption today! E. Perhaps you are a Christian who requires encouragement F. Let us help in whatever way we can; come to the front as we stand and sing