|
The doctrine of Original
Sin boils down to
this:
-
I
have a sinful nature by birth.
-
I
have "inherited" this sinful nature from Adam.
-
This
sinful nature is going to make me sin against my will.
-
God
is going to condemn me to Hell for having this sinful nature.
Now,
I am going to go through some verses that supposedly prove the
doctrine of original sin. Like the trinity doctrine, scriptures are
taken out of context and ideas placed in the minds of people what
scriptures do not teach.
Gen.
5:3
And Adam lived a hundred and
thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after
his image; and called
his name Seth.
This
passage of scripture supposedly teaches that man lost the image of
God because he has inherited the sin of Adam. Nowhere in the passage
is it stating anything about the spiritual and moral state at Seth’s
birth. One cannot imply or attempt to redefine sin as a genetic
substance rather than
a choice.
Adam
begot children in his own likeness, after his image, in the sense of
outward appearance,
flesh. It does not state or imply that we are born in Adam’s moral
likeness.
Everyone
is made in the image of God just as Adam was originally created. To
say that man has lost the image of God because of Adam’s sin is
untrue. Furthermore, Gen. 9:6 refutes the assumption that we lost the
image of God and born sinful. The New Testament confirms all are
created in the image of God. (1 Cor. 11:7 and James 3:9) Man has not
lost the image of God, but rather he has corrupted
that image through
sinful choices.
Gen.
6:5
The LORD saw that the wickedness
of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
The
passage is not referring to babies or what constitution they were
born with. 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 those on the earth
with a flood. This great wickedness was not the result of babies
whose intentions and thoughts were continually evil, but something
the adults were
doing.
This
verse does not teach universal depravity or babies born inherently
evil. The condemnation is the fact that they engaged in wicked deeds
(God "saw")
not that they were born in sin.
Ex.
20:5; 34:7; Deut 5:9
You are not to bow down to them
[idols] in worship or serve them; because I, the LORD your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the iniquity of the parents,
to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. (Ex. 20:5)
He graciously loves thousands,
and forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin. But he does not leave
the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the ancestors on
their children, and on their children's children to the third and
fourth generation. (Ex. 34:7)
You are not to bow down to them
in worship or serve them; because I, the LORD your God, am a jealous
God, punishing the children for the iniquity of their parents, to the
third and fourth generations of those who hate me. (Deut. 5:9)
The verses speak of God
visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the
children's children, to the third
and the fourth generations.
Ezek.
18:20 is clear that God does not hold the son guilty for the father’s
sin. Furthermore, if sin is “transmitted” to the third or fourth
generations, how can any of us be guilty of Adam’s sin since we are
way beyond the third and fourth generation?
Ex.
20:5 shows the same, but keep reading and notice why
God is visiting:
…visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that HATE ME.
However:
And showing
mercy unto
thousands of them that
love me and
keep my commandments. (Deut.
5:10)
There
is nothing said about born guilty, born in sin, nor any mention of
Adam’s sin.
Ps.
58:3
The wicked are estranged from the
womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
This
one verse is taken out of context to prove that all babies are born
sinful. Notice the words; "go astray as soon as they are born,"
not that they were born that way.
Upon
closer examination, it actually opposes the argument that all mankind
are born sinners and in a lost state. How so? Notice the RIGHTEOUS in
verse 10 who do not go astray. If one wants to take the
interpretation of the passage literally, then let us at least be
consistent.
If
we read the whole context, we find two classes of people:
It
is apparent that the wicked go astray, but then we have the righteous
that do not; therefore, all are not born astray. How can one be born
lost and go astray when they are already astray! You cannot go off
course if you already are.
Please
read the whole Psalm. Notice it is not addressed to babies, but
adults.
He speaks to the
congregation,
to the sons of men (v.1). He also says, “No, in heart you work
unrighteousness; on earth you weigh out the violence of your hands”
(v.2). This is not about seeking vengeance on babies. It is about
taking vengeance on the wicked that do nothing but engage in
violence.
Isa
48:8
Surely you did not hear, surely
you did not know; Surely from long
ago your ear was not
opened. For I knew that you would deal very treacherously, and were
called a transgressor
from the womb.
This
verse in Isa. 48 is similar to the
previous verse. The
house of Jacob is addressed, not babies. These people are rebellious
and very wicked, and they were that way from “long ago,” from
“the womb,” meaning, from their youth
(the same word for
“womb” is translated as “youth”
in Gen. 8:21). Because they were transgressors from their youth, God
knew what they would become. God is not saying babies are born wicked
and commit transgressions when they are born from their mother’s
womb. Babies are not born sinning. What baby do you know who comes
out of the womb committing sin?
Jer.
17:9
The heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Again,
context. If we 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 is
a man's ways, it is the "fruit of his DOINGS." There is
nothing that says it was the state
of his being.
Ps.
51:5
Now
we come to the mother of all verses. Without a doubt, this is the
most quoted verse to try to prove we are all born sinners. The verse
reads:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Be
careful of the NIV because it states, “Surely
I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
This is not a translation, but rather an interpretation and shows the
bias of the translators to promote the original sin doctrine. In the
New Testament, they use the phrase “sinful nature” such as in
Rom. 7:18, 25. There is no such adjective (sinful) found before the
word nature (except in the NIV!).
No
one is sinful before or at birth! Sin is not inherited, it is
committed! It is a transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4). To be a
sinner, one must commit sins.
According
to original sin advocates, we are to believe that from the moment of
conception a sinner is being formed in the mother’s womb, that the
essence of his substance will be saturated with sin that is passed
down from Adam.
First,
David did not say this is the state of his constitution, nor is it a
decree against all mankind. David makes no mention of Adam or Adam's
sin. Secondly, David does not state that he was born guilty or born a
sinner. Verse one describes the guilt of his mother who engaged in a
sexual union that was an act of sin which produced David. He is not
blaming his mother for him being a sinner or born a sinner. He is
simply stating the fact that he was born into a sinful world, into a
sinful environment, "brought forth in iniquity." Sin is all
around him from birth just like the rest of us when we were born.
Consider
parallel language in Acts 2:8. People were born in a native language
or tongue:
"And how hear we every man in our
own tongue, wherein we were born?"
Were
they born in a language? Did they speak a certain language because
they were born in it? No. The people around them spoke it, so
eventually they learned it. Likewise, David was not guilty of sin
from birth, but he was born into a sinful environment and into sinful
influences, thus, he soon learned to sin as one learns a language.
Job
14: 4; 15:14; 25:4
Who can produce a clean thing
from an unclean thing? No one! (14:4)
What is man, that he should be
clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
(15:14)
How then can man be justified
with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? (25:4)
These
verses are supposed to prove original sin. The fact is, 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). The verses do not say every
woman is inherently unclean or that all are born depraved.
The questions from Job 25:4
(pronounced Jobe not Job) 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 Eliphaz the Temanite
in chapter 15.
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 because of their folly (Job 42).
Ecc.
7:20
For there is not a just man on
earth who does good and does not sin.
This is supposed to support
man’s depravity, but yet verse 29 is ignored where it says that God
made man upright. The
book of Ecclesiastes draws a contrast between good and evil. It shows
what is righteous and what is wicked. Nowhere does it prove that all
men are born sinners. It simply shows the enormous difference between
a righteous person and wicked person.
Jer.
13:23
Can the Ethiopian change his
skin, or the leopard his spots? then may you also do good, that are
accustomed to do evil.
This
is not a doctrinal statement on mankind about their nature. It has to
do with people who were “accustomed to doing evil," it does
not say they were born that way. God does not hold a leopard
accountable for not being able to change its spots nor an Ethiopian
change his skin. However, original sin advocates will use this verse
to prove that since they cannot change, so also the sinner cannot
choose anything other than to sin, it is his nature. This is quite
concerning since Ezek. 33:13-16 teaches that all man has freewill
to do good or evil and
will be judged regarding his conduct.
Rom.
3:10-12
As it is written, “There is no
one righteous; no, not one. There is no one who understands. There is
no one who seeks after God. They have all turned away. They have
together become unprofitable. There is no one who does good, no, not
so much as one.”
This
refers back to Ps. 14:1-3; Ps. 53:1-6. God looks upon the children of
men as a whole, but there are always some exceptions. All through
scripture it speaks of righteous people in contrast to the wicked
(ex. Gen. 7:1; Gen. 18:23; Gen. 38:26; Job 1:1; Luke 1:6; etc.) There
are many occurrences of people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David,
Zechariah, Sarab, Ruth, Abigail, Elisabeth and a host of others, both
in the Old and New Testaments, who are spoken of as righteous.
All
who do evil are the ones who have become corrupt. “Will those who
do evil ever learn?” (Ps. 14:4). The lack of understanding is a
moral failure. It is not that man is unable to understand.
Understanding is always accessible to those who want to know the
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 doctrinal
statement of all mankind is to make the scriptures to be in
contradiction. The LORD says:
You shall seek me, and find me,
when you search for me with all your heart. (Jer. 29:13)
Rom.
3:23
For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God.
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.
Rom.
5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned.
Notice
this does not say men are born in sin. It says death comes because we
HAVE SINNED.
The
word "sinned" is an action verb. This means we have an
active part in our own failure. Sin is something we DO. Sinning is an
act we commit. We are not born condemned. The act of Adam gave man
the choice to sin because sin was not present. Adam had two options:
God
gave us freewill. Adam chose the wrong path and so do many others.
Adam’s act brings death. If we choose to follow Adam’s path we
die. Jesus’ act brings life. In choosing to follow Jesus’ path we
live. But whether in Adam or the last Adam (Christ), we make a
choice. The end result is the result of that choice.
I
also want to mention that Romans 5 is not speaking about physical
death. It is about spiritual death (which separates us from God. I
will explain later). Suffice to say, the context of Romans 5:12-21,
Paul speaks of condemnation and justification. The condemnation is
referring to spiritual death, for those who
are justified still
die physically. In
addition, if "death" as in Romans 6:23 means physical
death, being justified
would mean that we
would not die physically!
Rom.
5:19
Therefore, as one trespass led to
condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to
justification and life for all men.
Neither
does Romans 5:19 prove that all are born sinners. In Adam we do not
die until we choose to disobey. In Christ we do not live until we
choose to obey.
Adam’s
disobedience does not make every baby born lost any more than
Christ’s death automatically makes every human being found. Through
Adam sin has been set before us. Through Christ righteousness has
been set before us. If every human was born separated from God
because Adam sinned and died, then every human being would be
spiritually alive (saved) because Jesus obeyed and lives. But we
cannot be saved unless we make a decision and choose to follow Christ
(which the end result would be inheriting the kingdom with a life of
immortality). Likewise, we do not die spiritually until we choose to
disobey God (which the end result is to perish. John 3:16).
Ultimately, whether we live or die comes about by the choices we
make.
Again,
if all are condemned 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 is transmitted to us through Adam in the
unconditional sense, then the same chapter as well teaches that the
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. The truth is that we are condemned
when we commit sins (v. 12), but are saved when we obey and follow
Christ.
Eph
2:1-3
You were dead in your trespasses
and sins. At that time, you walked in the way of this world, in
conformity to the ruler of the domain of the air—the ruler of the
spirit who is now operating in the sons of disobedience. We too
all lived among them in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the
desires of the flesh and the mind. By nature we were children of
wrath, just like the others.
It
is clear from reading the verses that before conversion we were dead
in trespasses and sins. People like to misquote the verse by saying
we are all "born”
dead in trespasses and
sins." That is not
what the bible says. “Born” is not in the passage.
Furthermore,
it does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, or us inheriting the guilt of
Adam. They were dead because of sins in which
they once walked (v2),
and conducted themselves in the lusts of the flesh (v3). What the
verses prove is that:
-
It
contradicts inherited depravity and proves that people sin because
of their own conduct.
-
"Nature"
in the text refers to a person's
character, which
comes because of repeated
practice, not by
inheritance.
What
does one do with Rom. 2:14 where it says some people by
nature obey God's
will? The false doctrine of total depravity says that is impossible.
1
Co. 15:21-22
For since by man came death, by
Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
This
passage is used to support that ALL (spiritually and physically) die
due to the transmission of Adam's sin. However, this passage is
strictly speaking of physical death as the context is referencing the
future (physical) resurrection of the dead. Hence, "even so in
Christ all SHALL BE (future) made alive".
According
to Paul, physical death is a consequence springing from the man
(Adam), just as a glorified body shall come in the future through the
man, Jesus the Messiah.
Now,
how is it man dies on an account of Adam's sin? I believe Adam was
created mortal, that is, flesh and blood (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1 Co.
15:45-50). Through his personal act of disobedience, he lost for
himself (and descendants) physical access to the “tree of life"
(Gen. 3:22) which he (and we) must eat from to physically "live
forever" in this physical
body. As follows, man
physically dies due to separation from this tree. Jesus, a living
human being, born as all others, came under the same physical
consequences. He had a body that aged. He had blood cells that died
and reproduced. With each passing day, he was growing older. He got
tired, hungry, needed sleep, thirsty, et cetera. If Jesus had lived
to be an old man, he would have eventually physically died.
As
you can understand by now, the doctrine of original sin did not
originate with the bible. Its origins can be traced to Augustine.
Calvin, who was a student of Augustine's writings, popularized this
false doctrine. It is the influence of Greek philosophy that crept
into Christianity.
To
make someone a sinful substance from the time of conception is to
attack the character of God. How can we say enslavement to sin is a
constitutional fault in our makeup? How can God hold us responsible
for something we did not choose? Again, this doctrine is blasphemy
against God's character. It also leaves us with the conclusion that
sinners should be pitied rather than punished because we were born of
such a substance (sin) and therefore cannot help but choose to live a
life of sin. This makes sin a calamity, not a crime. This makes God
out to be some kind of monster. The only reasonable conclusion is
that since by nature we cannot choose other than evil, then we cannot
be blamed. Furthermore, if this is our nature (sinful) and we had no
choice in the matter and condemned for having it, this makes God
unjust.
My
dear brothers and sisters, God never made us a sinner against our
will. We should not expect pity from anyone, especially God, for
claiming or implying that He made us subject to have no control over
our will by virtue of our natural birth and thus could not help but
sin. Let us not disregard what scripture tells us:
Did not he that made me in the
womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)
Have we not all one Father? Has
not one God created us? (Malachi 2:10)
Know that Yahweh, he is God. It
is he who has made us, and we are his. We are his people, and the
sheep of his pasture. (Psalm 100:3)
Your hands have made me and
formed me. (Psalm 119:73)
Lo, this only have I found, that
God hath made man upright...(Ecclesiastes 7:29)
Notice
the last verse. The full verse says:
Behold, I have found only this,
that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.
Many
will try to say that the “they”
refers to Adam. Adam
is not called, “they.” It has to do with his descendants that
were involved in committing all kinds of lawlessness. They were
guilty before God and had no forgiveness unless they repented (stop)
their sinful behavior:
Let the wicked forsake his
way, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return
unto the LORD, and he
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he
will abundantly pardon.
(Isa 55:7)
God
did not make us with a corrupt nature. The bible is clear that man
corrupts himself,
not born that way:
And God saw that the wickedness
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the
LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth; And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it
was corrupt; for all
flesh had corrupted his way upon
the earth." (Genesis 6:5-7, 11-12)
(They) have
corrupted themselves;
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them:
they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it. (Exodus
32:7-8)
Lo, this only have I found, that
God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions.
(Ecclesiastes 7:29)
For I know that after my death ye
will utterly corrupt
yourselves, and turn
aside from the way which I have commanded you. (Deut. 31:29)
They have
corrupted themselves,
their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and
crooked generation. (Deuteronomy 32:5)
Why
do people sin? Why did Lucifer sin? Why did the angels sin? Why did
Adam and Eve sin? Did Adam have a sinful nature before he sinned? Did
it cause him to sin? After all, he sinned! Does anyone need a "sinful
nature" to sin? Of course not. The bible says:
But each one is tempted when he
is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when
it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown,
produces death. (James 1:14-15).
The
bible says each one is tempted when he is drawn away by "his own
lust," not by some fabricated story of some dual
personality, otherwise
known as sinful
nature, the Adamic
nature, and old
nature.
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.
There
are Scientists who think that some day they will find the cure for
the "sin gene.” Jehovah Witnesses believe sin
is in the blood. The
Watchtower teaches:
The blood in any person is in
reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the
individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints,
disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and
drinking habits… The poisons that produce the impulse to commit
suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood." 40
Watchtower
is saying that such sins reside in physical blood. This is one of the
reasons why they will not allow blood transfusions. I also find it
ironic that most Christians will accuse me of being a Jehovah’s
Witness when they have this teaching in common with them.
Sin
does not reside in the blood nor does righteousness. The bible does
use terms like "innocent blood" and "righteous
blood," but nowhere does it give us the idea that moral
properties reside in
the blood. Here are two quotes some may use to try to prove blood has
moral properties:
For he took his life in his hand
and he struck down the Philistine, and the LORD worked a great
salvation for all Israel. You saw it, and rejoiced. Why then will you
sin against innocent
blood by killing David
without cause? (1 Sam 19:5)
That upon you may come all the
righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood
of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and
the altar. (Matt. 23:35)
Note
it is obvious that it is not referring to moral
properties in the
blood, for physical blood has no moral properties. An innocent
person is the one who is free from guilt; not having done wrong or
violated any law.
Some
people try to prove that Jesus had "righteous blood" (or
“divine 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:
…but with the precious
blood
of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was
foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in
the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in
God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your
faith and hope are in God. (1Pet. 19:20-21)
“Precious”
means of great price, costly as a precious stone, highly valued, and
much esteemed. There is nothing in there about moral properties in
the blood of Jesus Christ. Nothing about the fleshly body of Jesus
was different than anyone else ever born on this earth.
Sin Is Not a Physical Problem,
It Is a MORAL Problem
A
careful examination of the Hebrew Testament scriptures reveals that
no one bears the iniquity of the father. Please take the time to read
Ezekiel 18:19-21 very carefully. Nowhere in scripture does it say we
are accountable to God for Adam's sin. Each person is responsible for
his or her own choices.
Most
religions teach that the Adamic
sin is not something
that is forgiven, but something that must be cleansed
and this will not happen until
we die. This is simply
false.
We
have seen in the scriptures that sin is not inherited and nowhere
does it say we lost the image of God. What we have done is abuse
that image. We have
corrupted ourselves morally and physically.
In
mainstream Christianity (and non-Christians), who believe we are
inbred with a sin nature that causes us to sin, end up calling it a
disease.
Thus, alcoholism is a disease, addicted to pornography is a disease,
stealing is a disease, et cetera. To be convinced and comforted that
sin is a disease that leaves one powerless is simply the perfect
excuse of a learned
habit that someone is
not yet willing to give up. What mainstream Christianity has managed
to do is convince the world that sin is no longer defined by what we
DO, but rather by what we ARE!
Teaching
that we are born morally depraved violates reason and scripture, and
makes God a cosmic tyrant. Why? Because God condemns us for being
born a sinner, totally incapable of doing any good, and condemns us
for it.
I
would like to conclude here what Charles Finney said concerning this
awful doctrine of sinful nature:
Men plead a sinful nature for
their excuse. And pray, what is this sinful nature? Do you mean by
it that every faculty and even the very essence of your constitution
were poisoned and made sinful in Adam, and came down in this polluted
state by inheritance to you? Do you mean that you were so born in sin
that the substance of your being is all saturated with it, and so
that all the faculties of your constitution are themselves sin? Do
you believe this?
I admit if this were true, it
would make out a hard case. A hard case indeed! Until the laws of my
reason are changed, it would compel me to speak out openly and
say--Lord, this is a hard case, that Thou shouldst make my nature
itself a sinner, and then charge the guilt of its sin upon me! I
could not help saying this; the deep echoings of my inner being would
proclaim it without ceasing, and the breaking of ten thousand
thunderbolts over my head would not deter me from thinking and saying
so. The reason God has given me would forever affirm it.
But the dogma is an utter
absurdity. For, pray, what is sin? God answers--"transgression
of law." And now you hold that your nature is itself a breach of
the law of God--nay, that it has always been a breach of God's law,
from Adam to the day of your birth; you hold that the current of this
sin came down in the veins and blood of your race--and who made it
so? Who created the veins and blood of man? From whose hand sprang
this physical constitution and this mental constitution? Was man his
own creator? Did sin do a part of the work in creating your physical
and your mental constitution? Do you believe any such thing? No; you
ascribe your nature and its original faculties to God, and upon Him,
therefore, you charge the guilty authorship of your "sinful
nature."
But how strange a thing is
this! If man is in fault for his sinful nature, why not condemn man
for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in
having a nature, nor in what nature is; but only and alone in the bad
use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never
find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly
not. He will not condemn us if we will only make a right use of our
powers--of our intellect, our sensibility, and our will. He never
holds us responsible for our original nature. If you will observe,
you will find that God has given no law prescribing what sort of
nature and constitutional powers we should have. He has given no law
on these points, the transgression of which, if given, might somewhat
resemble the definition of sin. But now since there is no law about
nature, nature cannot be a transgression.
Here let me say, that if God
were to make a law prescribing what nature or constitution a man must
have, it could not possibly be otherwise than unjust and absurd, for
the reason that man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation,
precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale
of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all. And yet
thousands of men have held the dogma that sin consists in great part
in having a sinful nature. Yes, through long ages of past history,
grave theologians have gravely taught this monstrous dogma; it has
resounded from pulpits, and has been stereotyped for the press, and
men have seemed to be never weary of glorifying this dogma as the
surest test of sound orthodoxy! Orthodoxy!! There never was a more
infamous libel on Jehovah! It would be hard to name another dogma
which more violently outrages common sense. It is nonsense--absurd
and utter NONSENSE! I would to God that it were not even worse than
nonsense! Think what mischief it has wrought! Think how it has
scandalized the law, the government, and the character of God! Think
how it has filled the mouths of sinners with excuses from the day of
its birth to this hour!
Now I do not mean to imply
that the men who have held this dogma have intelligently insulted God
with it. I do not imply that they have been aware of the impious and
even blasphemous bearings of this dogma upon Jehovah;--I am happy to
think that some at least have done all this mischief ignorantly. But
the blunder and the mischief have been none the less for the honest
ignorance in which they were done. 41
____________________________________________________
|