Original Sin on Trial

I came across an interesting article written by a lawyer arguing against the doctrine of  "Original Sin".  His argument is that according to the American Justice System, common sense, and justice it is unfair for God to hold us accountable for the disobedience of Adam and Eve. He makes some point that are, at first blush, thought provoking.  I have reproduced his essay below with my comments in red.

I am a former Christian and a lawyer.

Did he mean that he used to be lawyer? Oh well.
 
Soon after becoming a Christian, I struggled with the concept of original sin and its moral implications. According to Christian theology, man is born into this world with the stain of original sin – the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s direct command and ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequences of original sin are two-fold. First, man is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in Hell, unless he accepts Jesus as his savior. Second, man is a slave to a sinful nature that he cannot escape during his lifetime, although accepting Jesus is supposed to curb the "lusts of the flesh".

The term "original sin" does not explicitly used in the Bible. But the doctrine is taught and while this essay's author does a fair job in explaining what the concept is he still falls short. Since the author seems to enjoy quoting Romans (read down further to see what I mean), I think Romans 5:12 -21 is awesomely bette

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when 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 was 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! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the 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 the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 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.


The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The promise isn't to just curb our sinful desires but to be free to to do right and to be ju0stified despite our sin. The gift is forgiveness.
.
Here is my question: Would the charge of original sin and the imposition of the sentence of death on all people born after Adam and Eve stand up in an American Court? I think this question is a pivotal one, because the foundation for the need of a savior in Christian theology is based on original sin. I have explored this question with many Christians and I have never gotten a satisfactory response. Most Christians say that God is God and He can do what He wants with us because we are His creation. But, is that an acceptable answer? Others will say to me, “Well, God’s ways are not ours, so we have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” Still, others will say, “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have disobeyed God, so we all are guilty.”

If these are the only answers this man has gotten to his question then no wonder he is so smug. I think the question he poses is two-fold.. The imposition of death isn't just talking about hell or dying but its the reality of living fallen, incomplete lives, riddled with sin and suffering. Doing evil to ourselves and others day in and day out without remedy or cure. No hope or forgiveness. That is what Jesus delivers us from. Therefore for clarification we need to ask is the punishment being unfairly applied or is the part being born into sin the part that is unfair?

I will address each of those popular responses later, but first I want to explore the concept of original sin within the context of our criminal justice system. When a person commits a crime, the prosecutors will usually submit their evidence of the crime to a Grand Jury, who will weigh the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and investigators and then either hand down and indictment against the suspect, or refuse an indictment. If an indictment is handed down, the accused is formally charged with the crime and then arraigned in court. There, he can plead “guilty” and go straight to sentencing or plead “not guilty” and demand a trial. If he is convicted and there are no accomplices, then he and he alone bears the full burden of guilt. He is sentenced to a punishment, whether it be jail time or death and no one else shares the punishment.

Agreed

If you apply the facts of God’s case against mankind in the doctrine of original sin to our criminal justice system, you can immediately see that it does not fit. According to the doctrine of original sin, God holds everyone born after Adam and Eve wholly responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. He punished Adam and Eve and He also punished all of their progeny. Is that just? Imagine if we held the children of a murderer responsible for his crime and punished his children the same way we punished him. What would we say about a system of justice like that? First of all, from a legal standpoint, the prosecutor in our American criminal justice system would never get the indictment against the children of a murderer, unless they were involved in the murder in some way. Secondly, from a moral standpoint, it would be considered barbaric and inhumane to punish the children of a murderer, if they had nothing to do with the crime itself.

Stop the bus. Let's rewind for a moment. It's not right to equate us being hell-bound because of Adam's disobedience as the same as punishing a child as a murderer because his/her father is a murderer. The author is presupposing that we go to hell because Adam disobeyed. No. People go to hell because of their own sins not Adam. Table the discussion of if it's fair for each of us to be sinners from birth and just grant that given the first 5 chapters of Romans, we are all sinners and deserve to go to hell on our own merits.  Read Romans 3. It's not about Adam it's about us.

But Christians refuse to look at the doctrine of original sin through the lens of justice and fairness. Why is that? Why can’t they see the glaring moral implications of holding everyone responsible for the sins of two people? As I said above, the most popular answer that I get in response to my objection to original sin is, “God is God and He can do what He wants to us, since we are His creation.” This is exactly what the Apostle Paul said to similar criticism of the concept of Predestination in Romans, chapter 9. When Paul's controversial doctrine of Predestination was challenged, Paul replied, "Does the clay pot ask the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" I have always wanted to respond to Paul, "If the clay pot could talkm you better bet it would ask, why".

God allows us to ask  "Why?" That does not mean He has to give us an answer.  Or an answer that we want. "Sovereign" truly means that God can and does do however He likes. And sometimes He reveals the answers to our questions and sometimes He does not. The thing about dumb, blind clay pot is that compared to God we are just as weak, dumb, and blind. Just be glad that He has chosen to save some of us He didn't have to.

Back to my point about the "God is God" response: Is God above acting moral? Can He circumvent the very moral laws that He imposes on us? I have a huge problem with that. It is one thing if you create an inanimate object, like a clay pot and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It is another thing if you create an independent being, with a conscience and emotions and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It seems very hypocritical that God would be able to treat us differently than He commands us to treat one another. I doubt if executing the children of a murderer for the crime committed by their father would be considered just under any circumstances. After all, isn't our system of justice is derived from the concepts taught in the Bible?

God does not destroy anyone because He does not like it. The author talks like humanity has some intrinsic value that means that God must do what we think is best. No such thing. Who says that God is acting immoral? He's not. Again how do you know that God is acting immoral because He is doing things in away you wouldn't. God does not execute children of murderers for what our father  Adam has done. No everyone's sin is on his own head.

The word of the LORD came to me:  "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
       " 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
       and the children's teeth are set on edge'?   "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die - Ezekiel 18: 1-4

If I go to hell it won't be for the sins of Adam or my daddy, but my own.  In the same way I won't get into heaven because my daddy believed God (and He does). I must believe and follow Jesus for myself or I will not be going to heaven. Same as everyone else..

The next response I always get to my objection to original sin follows the one I just talked about above. Christians will say, “Well God’s ways are not our ways and we just have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” And I have to hand it to them, there are specific verses in the Bible that support their response to my objection. However, do you really believe that there is some hidden moral justification for original sin that only God knows about? And even if there is, why would He withhold that from us? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid, moral justification for holding the children of a murderer responsible for their father’s crime. You cannot do it. Trust me, I have tried.

Of course you can't because that scenario is not in the Bible. And yes God has not given us all the pieces to the puzzle of reality. There are things do not know and we may never know.

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
- Deuteronomy 29:29

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:11-13

Another response I get from Christians to my objection to original sin is this: “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have done the same thing, so we all are guilty.” Think about that response for a minute. If no one could have resisted the fruit, then that means we lack free will, which raises even more questions of fairness and morality. If no one could have said to the serpent, “No, I think I will just eat something else”, then that means God predestined the fall of man. How could God hold us responsible for doing something that we are unable to resist doing? Believe it or not, the Apostle Paul addressed this very question in the same chapter 9 in the Book of Romans.

Something very important. The serpent did not make Adam or Eve do anything. They willingly chose to disobey God. Now Eve was completely tricked. But Adam understood what he was doing - rebelling against God.  Their wills was not violated and neither is ours when we sin. We sin because we want to. That is why we deserve hell.

Paul was asked by someone listening to his Predestination sermon, “Who can resist God’s will?” In other words, the person was asking how is God just in punishing us for doing what He willed us to do. And do you know that all Paul could muster in response to that very thoughtful and compelling question was, “Who are you, O’ man to question the motives of God?” That was it. I call that the “Wizard of Oz” response to the moral objection to Predestination. “Who are you to question the great and mighty Oz”, said the Oz to Dorothy and her companions. Paul’s response is no response, in my opinion. Of course it is wrong for God to hold someone responsible for something that He willed them to do.

The Bible Disagrees with you.

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

- James 1:13-15

Original sin makes a mockery of our concept of justice and fairness and would never pass muster with us, if it was a rule that we enforced in our criminal justice system. But for some reason, God gets a pass and Christians just accept that God can do what He wants, even if it means doing something that violates His own concept of morality. Christians approach original sin from a biased point of view – God gets the benefit of the doubt. But at some point, you have to draw a line and begin to question foundational issues like original sin. I understand that there is room to argue over things like the Immaculate Conception, women in the pulpit, faith versus works, and other issues that do not implicate basic moral principles. But when the very foundation upon which a faith like Christianity is based –original sin – implicates those principles, you cannot just ignore it and give the Maker of the faith a pass. For if you do, then the faith itself becomes meaningless.

The entire argument is what is referred to as a "straw men argument". A characature of "original sin" is defined and refuted. Original sin refers to the taint all us have giving us the propensity to sin. God does not need a pass because no innocent man or woman is being punished for something that they did not do.

All have sinned fallen short of the glory of  God. - Romans 3:23

I agree that this is an important issue and foundational. It goes with faith verses works. because we are saved by faith in Jesus to do good works. Salvation from hell and good works are the byproducts of our faith not means of our salvation.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
-Ephesians 2: 8-10

Original Sin on Trial

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham

There is an excellent lecture I listened to from Apologetics 315 blog. It is a lecture by Richard Baukham in which he gives the reasons why it is good history to believe and trust that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should be in our canon and other "gospels" are not for good reasons. I highly recommend this for anyone interested in beginning to study the canonization of the gospels.

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham

Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation of the Bible

James White has written a great post on his blog dealing with textual criticism. He made some comments about his debate with Bart Ehrman last year. His whole point is that Ehrman is wrong: Textual variations due to Biblical transmission does not invalidate  the Bible's inerrancy or inspiration. Just because you don't like how God has preserved His revelation to us, does not mean that God did not preserve His word. Above Dr White did a compare the texts of Hebrews 2:9-18 from the Byzantine Priority Text and the Westcott/Hort text. These arecfrom two different lines of transmission. If Ehrman was right one woujld expect them to say contradictory things, but they don't. If you haver question about if you can trust the New Yestament in light of scholar's like Bart Ehrman, I recommend you read Dr. White's post! I want to end this with a quote from his article.

So as I consider God’s gift of His Word, I am thankful that I have been forced to examine its history closely, and from many angles. And when I do, I am again and again forced to my knees in thanksgiving for what He has done. He has not left us to wander in darkness. He has provided us with a reliable, trustworthy guide in Holy Scripture.

AMEN


Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Circular Alogic - “Who Designed the Designer?”

Anyone who has heard or read atheistic arguments against the existence of God has no doubt heard of this one that Mariano readily and easily rebuts. The argument says that there is no God because if everything needs a beginning we have no way to explain how God came into being. I love the way Mariano deals with this. You owe it to yourself to check it out if you want to know what the answer is.

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Circular Alogic - “Who Designed the Designer?”

Biblical Exegesis:Revelations 22:16

Although this passage was pointed out in an attempt reject the virgin birth, TheGodless (from Twitter), doesn't seem to recognize that He pointed out a verse of scripture that says a lot about who Jesus is.

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." - Revelations 22:16

Let's unpack this. This is the resurrected Christ speaking. The Apostle John is telling about the revelations he has been given. This includes Jesus speaking to him directly. While TheGodless wants to focus on the pharse "the Offspring of David," because it shows that Jesus was David's descendant which he says means that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. However he missed the point...Jesus was not Joseph's blood son, but Mary's and she was a descendant of  David. Also, more importantly,. look at what Jesus says. Jesus says He is the Root and Offspring of David. This means He is the source and the descendant of David! He also says He is the bright Morning Star. The original audience of the the Book of Revelations would have understood Jesus to be talking about His Deity. The only way a person can be all of these is if He is God.