On Friday, 19 January 2018 we had a wonderful bible study, during which we looked at Jesus’ letters to the churches at Ephesus and Smyrna. After the bible study, we had a deep discussion on the doctrine of ‘Original Sin‘.

Before I continue, let us take a look at the common (read ‘Reformed’) view of this doctrine. When dealing with any doctrine we need to ask, “Is this taught in scripture?” So I direct you to a post by Matt Perman titled “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin?“, in which he gives reasons for which we should accept the doctrine.

Perman’s post is what one would expect from a typical Reformed Christian. The arguments are specious and most conclusions are reached without consideration of the context and genre of the verses. The arguments also do not follow any proper logic. For example, citing Ephesians 2.2, Perman writes, “If we are all ‘by nature children of wrath,’ it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty.” He seems to indicate that the phrase ‘by nature children of wrath’ must mean that we are born with a sinful nature.

However, this is faulty logic. God’s wrath is directed only at those who are guilty. But that does not mean that everyone is born with a sinful nature. It just might be that everyone happens to choose to sin. However, the Calvinist Reformed position that Perman represents cannot think of human choice apart from God. And so he must force the verses he cites to mean what he wants them to mean.

Perman even misuses Romans 5.12 to try to support the doctrine of original sin. However, the text of the verse reads, “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.” Paul says that death came to all not because Adam sinned but because all sinned! Death may have entered because of Adam, but we die not because he sinned, but because we sin.

As a counterpoint to this view, I direct you another post. This one is by Peter Enns titled “5 Old Testament Reasons to Rethink ‘Original Sin’“, in which he highlights 5 reasons for which we should reject the doctrine.

Enns rightly points out that, after Genesis 5, Adam is mentioned only once, and then as a member of a genealogy among the genealogies in 1 Chronicles. He stresses the fact that, if Adam’s sin were so damning that we are born with its stain, then surely God would have mentioned it among the curses announced in Genesis 3. He also is correct to observe that, in no instance of sin is the person involved even reminded of Adam’s sin. Cain sins, but is not said to have done so because he inherited this nature from Adam. David sins, but is similarly not told that this propensity for sin is a result of Adam’s sin.

Enns rejects the doctrine of original sin, and rightly so. However, in his post he does not suggest a way forward but only says that he deals with the issues he raises in his post in greater detail in his book ‘The Evolution of Adam‘.

I would like to propose a way forward.

Paul presents Adam and Jesus as representatives of two approaches to being human. To be ‘in Adam’ is to follow Adam’s approach. To be ‘in Christ’ is to follow Jesus’ approach.

The question arises, “Why did Adam sin?” Or rather, what really was his sin? Did he sin just once or multiple times in Genesis 3? God had told him and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, they did. This is obviously their first sin. However, they did not immediately suffer the consequences of this act. Rather, in grace, God came to them. And they hid from God. This is their second sin. Rather than face up to their actions, they tried to hide. And when God asked Adam what he had done, he could simply have owned up and accepted responsibility. However, he now knew how to engage in evil, having eaten the forbidden fruit. So rather than accept responsibility, he passes the blame to Eve. And she passes the blame to the serpent. This was their third sin.

When God asked Adam, “Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” he was giving Adam a chance to repent and accept what he had done. We cannot allow ourselves to think that God became gracious only after he had banished them! His nature is that of being gracious and forgiving. And so he was giving Adam a chance to own up and repent.

But Adam did not take this opportunity. Rather, betraying his calling to be God’s image bearer, he behaved according to his animal instincts and chose to try to protect himself by passing the blame. This is not a great mystery. All animals are driven by self preservation. But humans, created to bear God’s image, were entrusted with the task of showing the rest of creation how one handles responsibility, for as God’s image bearers, the buck stops with us. Rather than do this, they chose to pass the buck, showing themselves not to be capable of bearing this image responsibly. They behaved instead like animals, allowing the drive for self preservation to overrule all other drives.

Jesus, to the contrary, though fully human, sets aside the desire toward self preservation and willingly lays his life down for others. In fact, when, in Mark 8.34-37, he says, “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it” what else is he warning us about but the danger of self preservation?

If this is the case, if the sin of Adam was self preservation like an animal, we do not need any mysterious passing of sin in our nature as suggested by the doctrine of original sin. All of us are animals. We are born with a drive to preserve ourselves. This is not sinful in and of itself. Even Jesus at Gethsemane pleaded with the Father to spare him from the cross. He too wanted to preserve his life. Yet, at the end, he surrendered to the will of his Father and did not listen to the drive to self preservation.