The False Doctrine of Original Sin Refuted Scripturally

 

The False Doctrine of Original Sin Simplified

The doctrine of Original Sin basically boils down to this:

  1. I have a sinful nature by birth.

  2. I have "inherited" this sinful nature from Adam.

  3. This sinful nature is going to make me sin, or is a causative something back of the will.

  4. I am unable to keep the requirements of God's Law.

  5. God is going to condemn me to Hell for having this sinful nature.

If I have inherited this sinful nature from Adam, how is this sinful nature passed on to me? What part of me is it, in which this sinful nature is passed on? In what part of my being does this sinful nature reside? Sin has to do with choice, not something you inherit. No one inherits sin or a sinful nature. How can God condemn you for something in which you had no choice?

All Scriptures quoted will be from the King James Bible.   Hopefully, when we are through, you will understand the truth and be able to discern the error of this teaching. I will go through different doctrines that are affected by the doctrine of Original Sin and I will compare it with Scripture, as written, without adding words to fit a particular denominational, theological teaching. Should you disagree with me, I welcome your comments, but your conclusions must agree with Scripture rather than based on experience or a particular brand of theology. I would also ask that you pay close attention to what you read and take it at face value. In other words, please do not assume or read more into what is written that I haven't said. In other words, try not to jump to conclusions. I have noticed in the past that many assumptions and decisions are made before any serious searching of the Scriptures to see whether these things be so.

The following is a list of Scriptures that are quoted to try and prove this false doctrine. We shall look at each one in their context.

Scripture #1

This one verse is taken out of context to prove that all babies are born sinful. Notice the words, "go astray from birth" not that they were born that way. Also notice the RIGHTEOUS in verse 10 who do not go astray. Are they included with those who go astray from birth?

Let's look at the context of the whole Psalm (vss. 1-11)

Notice he is not addressing children, but ADULTS, "O congregation.....O ye sons of men?" He also says, "Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth." He is speaking to adults about their heart and their violence. He's not accusing infants of being violent.

I asked a preacher to tell me what baby he has known that as soon as it was born spoke lies. He could not give me an answer. The best he could do was say that a baby messing his diaper is an act of sin. This is from a grown man, a preacher! Another preacher said that sometimes a baby cries for nothing and that is considered sin. So we are to believe a baby knows the difference between a lie and a truth and therefore committing a willful sin?

It says that the wicked who go astray from the womb should have their teeth broken out. How many infants are born with teeth in their mouth? If this is talking about babies, was there ever a time when you sincerely prayed for God to knock out the teeth of babies and break them into pieces?

This Psalm is not talking about God taking vengeance on babies. It's about God taking vengeance on the wicked who have done nothing but engaged themselves in violence and bloodshed. Who are the wicked? The wicked are those who forsake God's law.

When the Psalmist says, "O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies," he is simply using a language of description to describe the longevity of the sins of these wicked individuals. It's not a statement about his nature at the time of conception or birth, but about the way he's lived his life.

Scripture #2

Here we are to believe that babies are already transgressors from the womb.

If we look at the context we can deduct that the "womb" is Egypt; however, the majority of Christendom use this verse to teach that babies are born sinners, but we'll look and see what the passage says beginning in verse 1.

According to the verse above, to whom is this addressed? Is it addressed to infants or to the house of Jacob, which is called Israel?

It goes on to say,

If you read this through, you will note that this whole passage is about God's foreknowledge about Israel. Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

God prophesied and knew how Israel would act based on his foreknowledge of them. They were an obstinate people. This is God dealing with Israel, whom he chose out of Egypt. God chose them in the furnace of affliction and refined them there. Egypt is known as the furnace of affliction (v. 10). He called them, the house of Jacob, a transgressor from the womb prophetically, with his foreknowledge, because he knows the end from the beginning. God predicted that they would deal treacherously and live in sin. Note that God did not say they were transgressors before they were born. ".... for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." God "called" them a transgressor from the womb. It was not a "title" God attached to infants, but it was a title attached to Israel in lieu of what he knew they would become.

Scripture #3

Note how verses are pulled out of thin air and extracted from its context to prove what the Scriptures do not teach.

In the Bible it talks about a pure heart, a clean heart, hardened heart, willing heart, trembling heart, glad heart, perfect heart,"double heart," wicked heart, sound heart, merry heart, proud heart, heavy heart, deceived heart, an evil heart, stony heart, true heart, and a new heart. And in Jeremiah 17:9 it speaks of a deceitful heart. What does the passage mean, "the heart is deceitful?" It simply means that the heart will say one thing and feel another, or profess one thing and turning its affections in another direction.

Again, context.

If we look at the context and read the verse following it, God tells us what he means by the deceitful heart. He said, "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Scripture says it's a man's ways, it is the "fruit of his DOINGS." There is nothing in Scripture that says it was the state of his being.

Scripture #4

The choice for this verse must surely be out of desperation. This verse says nothing about being born in sin.

Note "that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" is not referring to babies. Please read the context of the passage. What God said preceded the flood. These people lived in wickedness and the wickedness was great. God told Noah, who was not wicked, whose heart was not continuously evil, that he would destroy the earth with a flood to kill everyone on the face of the earth. This great wickedness was not the result of babies, but something the adults were doing.

Scripture #5

Here we are to believe that from the moment of conception a sinner is being formed. What will be growing in that womb for the next nine months will produce nothing but a dirty rotten sinner. In other words, we are to believe the essence of his substance, in soul and body, will be nothing but saturated with sin that was passed down from Adam.

First of all, David did not say this is the state of his constitution at, or before birth. The subject of the verse is his conception. David does not state that he was born guilty. Verse one describes the guilt of his mother.

Nobody is born a sinner. Sin is not a substance that can be transmitted from one individual to another. Sin is not a "physical" issue, but a "moral" issue. The clear definition of sin is found in the Bible, for it says that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Sin must be committed, it's not something you are born with."Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

A baptist preacher, A.T. Overstreet, states so well,

All these verses are pulled out of context to try and prove this false doctrine that all babies are born sinners is anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-truth, and anti-common sense.

Scripture #6

The entire human race, "born of a woman," falls into voluntary moral depravity because of the combination of influences in that direction (the world, the flesh, and the devil).

It is obvious that Job is one of the books in the Bible that is most quoted out of context. Like all the previous verses quoted, we have seen it demonstrated over and over how passages are used without acknowledging the surrounding text.

In the book of Job we know that Job was a perfect and upright man, one who feared God and eschewed evil. Job's world began to crumble when stricken with evil, and not once did he curse God. As much as Job suffered affliction, he still praised God. God never accused Job of being sinful and disobedient, that charge came from his friends. Job suffered the loss of his family and suffered a lot of physical pain and at one point in his life Job wished he had died at birth rather than continue in that awful condition. Job insisted that he was not afflicted as the result of unrighteousness or perverseness.

The questions above from Job 25:4 and 15:14 are directed to Job by his friends in response to Job declaring his innocence. The statements from his friends are not God's position on man. This is Bildad the Shuhite's opinion in chapter 25 who was echoing Elphaz the Temanite in chapter 15. The friends of Job were very wrong in their assessment of mankind. When it comes to Job's friends, God ordered them to offer sacrifices in Job's presence and to have Job pray for their forgiveness as a result of their folly (Job 42).

At this point, I would again like to quote A.T. Overstreet who comments concerning Job 14:4 and 15:14:

This text is supposed to teach that sinful parents will bear sinful children. But this is to completely ignore its context, which shows that Job had his eye wholly on the frail and dying state of man, and not at all upon his moral state. Job 14:1-6. The whole sense of what Job was saying was that no one can bring other than frail and dying offspring from frail and dying parents. To arbitrarily force this text to teach something that is completely foreign to its context can only be another example of an interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.

If this text teaches that a sinner invariably produces another sinner, it teaches blasphemy. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, then Mary, the mother of our Lord, was born a sinner. So if Job 14:4 really does teach that a sinner must produce another sinner, there could be no way of escaping the blasphemous conclusion that our Lord also was born a sinner.

It should first be said that these are the words of Eliphaz and so cannot be quoted as inspired truth. God himself testified that Job's comforters did not hold the truth. Job 42:7. But suppose we did accept this verse as inspired truth, what does it teach? It certainly teaches nothing about a morally depraved physical constitution. It merely implies the sinful condition of all mankind, without saying anything about how men got that way.

Scripture #7

This is supposed to prove that babies are born sinners? Again, let's get the context.

This is not talking about babies. This is not about going from lost to more lost. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one" is taken from Psalms 14:3. God had defined the way and prescribed path (Ex. 32:8..), but they turned aside from it, not that they were born that way. The "tongues they have used deceit," and "feet are swift to shed blood" is not describing the actions of infants.

The lack of understanding is a moral failure, a lack of heart understanding. It's not that he couldn't understand. Understanding is always available to those who want to know truth (Ps. 119:104, 130; Isa. 8:10; John 7:17, etc.). To make Romans 3:10 ("there is none that seeketh after God") a blanket statement of all mankind is to make the Scriptures to be in contradiction. The Lord himself says, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart" (Jer. 29:13)

 If a person's heart does not seek after God, then you have a person who doesn't care to find, who ends up with a heart that doesn't understand. The condition of being without understanding is certainly avoidable and so puts the person in a blameworthy condition.

This is certainly not about babies being born in a sinful condition.

Scripture #8

This is supposed to prove that babies are born sinners, that they are born dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1 says nothing about one being "born" dead in trespasses and sins).

Paul says all have sinned. Note Paul did not say all babies are born sinners. He said all have sinned. The word "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part. Sin is voluntary. All that have sinned are the ones who have sinned, all who have broken God's law. What law does a baby break? Infants are incapable of sinning.

Scripture #9

Neither does Romans 5:19 prove that all are born sinners.

If all die in Adam, then all are saved in Christ. We cannot make one absolute and the other conditional. In other words, IF Romans 5 says sin (which doesn't say sin passed, it says "death") is passed down from Adam in the unconditional sense, then the same chapter also teaches that the very same entire race of humans are ALL saved unconditionally, because of what Christ did. This would teach Universalism! There is no other way around it. One cannot wrest the Scriptures one way while interpreting the identical words another way.

That word "made" does not mean "formed". Nobody is made a sinner. God does not make sinners in the womb. That word "made" is a reference to someone being made an elder, priest, governor, etc. It carries the meaning of an appointed office or position. This passage isn't saying many were made sinners in that they were formed that way, but that they were appointed to be, as one is elected to an office. This is a reckoned position, not an actual condition. The English text bears this out, for when it says "by the obedience of one shall many be MADE RIGHTEOUS," certainly it is not saying that Christ's obedience actually caused us to do a level of righteousness that qualifies us for salvation.

Scripture #10

This is supposed to prove that all sinned in Adam. As Overstreet has said so well.

______________________________________________

Odd and Ends

As you can see, none of the verses quoted above was taken out of context and is in harmony with Scripture. There was not one verse that said all babies are born sinners. I use the word "babies," because all adults started off as infants. I don't mind if you disagree, but if you write to me, you must be able to support your doctrine with Scripture, not philosophy and then try to fit it into the Scriptures. "For what saith the Scripture." (Rom. 4:3)

A lot of times the immediate reaction of people when you try to tell them this doctrine of Original Sin/Sinful Nature is a false doctrine is anger, or they can't believe how confused you are that you should turn your back on an established doctrine that has been around for centuries. The fact is, false doctrine has also been around for centuries. The other immediate reaction is to spurt off standards texts, like the ones quoted above. Once you are able to prove this doctrine is false and show how it contradicts other Scripture passages, their philosophy keeps jumping to the surface rather than just take the Scriptures at face value. An honest believer will follow the example of Christians found in Acts 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

The doctrine of Original Sin did not originate with the Bible. Its origins can be found to come from Augustine, not the Bible. Calvin, who was a student of Augustine's writings, popularized this false doctrine. It's the influence of Greek philosophy that has crept into the Church. See The Influence Of Greek Philosophy On The Development Of Christian Theology.

This false doctrine affects many other important doctrines of the Bible. See How Does Original Sin Affect Other Important Bible Doctrines?

Also, when it comes to this false doctrine, one cannot hold onto the "age of accountability."

 

There Cannot Be An Age Of Accountability

For those who hold to the doctrine that babies are born sinners, there can be no such thing as "age of accountability". If everyone is condemned for the sin of Adam from birth, as they teach, there is no certain age before they become accountable. Why? Because this false doctrine, whether the babies sinned or not, makes them guilty and under God's wrath from birth, period.

Sensing the injustice of this awful doctrine, they have to find a way out of this dilemma! We will be told, "Babies and young children are taken care of by God's grace and go to heaven." Even this type of answer is not satisfactory, for according to Revelation 21:27 nothing defiled shall enter Heaven. So, in answer to this they must say, "But he doesn't take his sinful nature to Heaven with him. It is also taken care of by God's grace." Well, they are apparently unaware of what the Scriptures have to say about the continuation of the established character and personality of the individual. Revelation 22:11 states very plainly that there will not be any change that will take place after death. Also see Proverbs 27:22. Even if the body is destroyed, the foolishness that is part of his character would remain.

To make someone a sinful substance from the time of conception is to attack the character of God. How can you say enslavement to sin is a constitutional fault in our makeup? How can God hold us responsible for something we did not choose? This doctrine is a blasphemy against God's character. It also leaves us with the conclusion that sinners should be pitied rather than punished because they were born of such a substance (in sin) and therefore can't help but choose to live a life of sin! This makes sin a calamity, not a crime. This makes God to be some kind of monster. Reason can only conclude that since by nature you cannot choose other than evil, then you cannot be blamed. You have the best of all excuses for continuing in sin.

My dear brothers and sisters, God never made you a sinner against your will. Do not expect pity from anyone, especially God for your claim that He made you subject to have no control over your will by virtue of your natural birth and thus could not help but sin. What do you do with these sample of verses?

How can someone charge God with making sinful beings in light of the Scriptures above? God didn't make you with a corrupt nature. The Bible is clear that man corrupts himself.

Now, why do we sin? Why did Lucifer sin? Why did the angels sin? Why did Adam and Eve sin? Does anyone need a "sinful nature" to sin? Of course not. The Bible says, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" James 1:14-15.

The Bible says man is tempted when he is drawn away of "his own lust," not by some fabricated story of some duel personality, sinful nature, the Adamic nature, old nature, etc., etc..

What Sin Is Not

With this false doctrine of Original Sin/Sinful Nature, the word "sin" takes on a whole new meaning and the Biblical definition is tossed aside. The meaning of the word "sin" no longer resembles the way the Bible defines it, but instead it must have a different definition in order to protect this doctrine. The supporters for the Sinful Nature doctrine do not teach that all sinned, but that all became sinners. To them, the damning factor is not in the condemnation passed down in the original sin, but in the effect original sin had on the nature of Adam's posterity. They teach that when Adam sinned his "nature" became corrupted so that he passed that depraved condition on to all his posterity. Sin is viewed as a disease, a kind of nonmaterial genetic mutation acquired in Adam and then passed down from generation to generation. Like organic evolution, it requires the creation of missing links to substantiate it. In this case, the missing links are fabricated terms and concepts not appearing in Scripture:

But just the same, Original Sin must be protected. As Brother Mike Miller put it,

The real issue here is the ORIGIN OF SIN. We are taught that sin is part of our physical makeup, and the Bible flatly teaches otherwise. The Bible is clear that a person is born innocent and without any knowledge of good and evil and that we GO ASTRAY, WE TURN ASIDE every one to his own way. (Ps. 14:3, Eccl. 7:29, Is. 53:6, Matt. 18:12, Rom. 3:12, 2 Pet. 2:15, 1Pet. 2:25.) The Bible is clear that a person is born innocent and corrupts himself to be controlled by his own lusts. Sin is something that happens AFTER we are born, not something that is in our Genes DNA, or Chromosomes. This doctrine makes sin to be a physical problem, and this is exactly the belief in the majority of Christendom and the world. Those in the world think that some day he will be able find the cure for the "sin gene". Look at this lady's blog and see what kind of thinking this doctrine has produced:

http://www.whereistand.com/CarolHoenig/12556

There is also extensive research to look for the "gay gene."

Then there are cults like the JW's who believe sin is in the blood. This is what the Watchtower teaches,

Watchtower is saying that such sins reside in physical blood. This is one of the reasons why they won't allow blood transfusions. Sin does not reside in the blood, nor does righteousness reside in the blood, and any Scripture quoted is used as a smokescreen to enforce the Gnostic thinking. The Bible does use terms like "innocent blood" and "righteous blood" (:righteous blood" only used one time..Matt. 23:38.), but this is not talking of the properties of blood itself. The innocent blood is speaking of one who was simply innocent from doing any crime, who are unjustly punished, and the righteous blood refers to those saints who were righteous, "righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias."

Here are two quotes some may use to try and prove blood has moral properties.

Note it is obvious that it's not referring to moral properties in the blood, for physical blood has no moral properties. A person who is innocent is one who is free from guilt; not having done wrong or violated any law. In Matthew Jesus talks about those righteous people from Abel right onto Zacharias! Jesus was not referring to these people in the sense of their blood having moral property (for it doesn't!), but of the people themselves living a righteous life, innocent, and whose blood was shed, from Abel to unto the blood of Zacharias.

Some people try to prove that Jesus had "righteous blood" flowing in his veins by quoting 1 Peter 1:19 for support. Nowhere in the passage does it say anything about "righteous blood." The text says "PRECIOUS BLOOD."

Precious means of great price; costly; as a precious stone. Highly valued; much esteemed. Nothing in there about moral properties in the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus shed his precious blood for our sins. He gave up his life for us. JESUS IS THE LAMB without blemish and without spot. He never sinned. As one pastor put it:

Moral properties are not found in the blood. Sin nor righteousness reside in the blood. Sin is not in our Genes DNA, or Chromosomes. Sin is not a physical problem, it is a MORAL problem.

As said above, this doctrine of Original sin makes sin as a part of our physical makeup. You will often hear that Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity. That IN ADAM ALL SINNED. This is not Bible doctrine.

A careful examination of Old Testament Scriptures reveals that no one bears the iniquity of the father:

Children do not bear the sin of their parents., i.e., a son does not bear the iniquity of the sin of his father. Every person born is responsible for his own sin and will pay the penalty for it. The Scriptures clearly state:

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are accountable to God for Adam's sin. We do not bear his iniquity, nor did we genetically inherit his sin, nor is it inbred into our hearts or will. No child is born a sinner. Romans 9:11 states,

And,

The Bible teaches that unborn children are not sinners, nor are they born saints. To charge children that they are born evil sinners is foreign to the word of God. Additionally, according to Rom 5:13, they are not accountable for Adam's sin because sin is not imputed (charged, accountable) when there is no moral law that has been personally and willfully broken.

Most religions teach that the Adamic sin is not something that is forgiven, but something that must be cleansed out. This doctrine certainly is not in the word of God.

I would like to quote a personal friend of mine where it concerns Seth.

And I would like to add to that that in the beginning of Genesis 5, we read in the very first verse:

If man is so evil and corrupt and there are none that seeketh after God and their ways are continuously evil from the time of birth and come out speaking lies, etc., go back one chapter and we read in the last verse, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." (Gen. 4:26). As you can see, this false doctrine contradicts many passages of Scriptures.

We have seen in the word of God that sin is not inherited and nowhere in the Scripture does it say you lost the image of God. What man has done is abuse that image. They have corrupted themselves, morally and physically.

Nature

Man is not born with a sinful nature. The Bible speaks of no such thing. Let's go through the Bible and look at the verses that deal with the word nature in them. It mentions the word "nature" eleven times, and we will find that the Bible never uses the word as theologians do.

 The first verse we come upon deals with lesbian activity.

____________________________________________________

First and foremost, I am thankful for God's word and I wish to thank the brothers and sisters whom I have gleaned and compiled this study. You may take this material and freely distribute to those whom you think will benefit from this study in God's word.

In His Service,
Sandy