Are Men Born Sinners?

The Myth of Original Sin

By A. T. Overstreet*

Part Four:

Insurmountable Problems of a False Doctrine

Chapter Eight:

The Great Problem of Original Sin

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen. 18:25

He shall judge the world with righteousness. Psalm 96:13

He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness. Acts 17:31

The one great problem of original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. These innate, God-given convictions affirm to us irresistibly that it is impossible to hold a man responsible for a deed that he did not commit and that was committed thousands of years before he was born and came into existence. So the theologians who defend the theory of original sin have the impossible task of justifying God for doing what their own conscience affirms he could not be just in doing.

The theologians who work so hard to resolve this problem still find it impossible to escape their God-given convictions that the doctrine of original sin does, in fact, involve God in a monstrous injustice. Charles Hodge both recognizes this injustice and evades it in the same sentence:

It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justice and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born, and a benevolent rational being is good in the universal judgment of men, whether he was so created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment.

This, then how to reconcile the justice and goodness of God with the doctrine of original sin is the great, omnipresent problem of original sin, a problem that remains to haunt the advocate of original sin even after he has hurriedly dismissed it. Sheldon also calls attention to the problem of the injustice of God involved in the doctrine of original sin. He says:

The same God whose penetrating glance burns away every artifice with which a man may enwrap himself, and reaches at once to the naked reality, is represented as swathing His judgment with a gigantic artifice, in that He holds countless millions guilty of a trespass which He knows was committed before their personal existence, and which they could no more prevent than they could hinder the fiat of creation. If this is justice, then justice is a word of unknown meaning.

Strong admits quite frankly that he is not completely satisfied with the theories of original sin. He says:

We must grant that no one, even of these later theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show that the last of them the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam's natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are naturally and organically one explains the largest number of facts, is least open to objections, and is most accordant with Scripture.

The fact is that the irresistible convictions of justice in the hearts of all men reject the teachings of the doctrine of original sin. Consider the following:

1. If Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," means born with a sinful nature and under the wrath of God because of that nature which the advocates of the doctrine of original sin teach then it follows that every child who dies in infancy goes to hell where he must forever suffer the awful punishment and wrath of God.

But Christians will not accept this. I have not found a Christian yet who will accept that babies who die go to hell. But this text, which they themselves use to prove original sin, could not help but teach that babies who die go to hell where they will suffer God's wrath in never-ending punishment. If babies really are born "by nature the children of wrath," then they must go to hell if they die in such a state. But why is it that Christians cannot accept that babies who die go to hell? Because they know it would be a monstrous and cruel injustice to send innocent little babies to hell. And, of course, they are right. God would never send innocent little babies to hell. However, this is what Eph. 2:3 necessarily teaches if it teaches the doctrine of original sin. This problem with Eph. 2:3 points up once again the insurmountable problem with original sin, which is that it conflicts with our God-given convictions of justice, making God unjust.

2. If Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," means that even unborn children in their mother's womb are sinners, then it follows that all the multiplied millions of children who have been aborted, along with all stillbirths, are in hell where they will suffer its torments throughout all eternity for "their part" in the sin of Adam.

3. If Heb. 7:9-10, "Levi...paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him" means that in Adam all mankind sinned because they were in his loins when he transgressed, which is the teaching of the advocates of original sin, then it follows that the Lord Jesus Christ also sinned in Adam. This is a blasphemous thought, which no Christian can allow, but something that would have to be true if all of human nature was corrupted in Adam when he sinned.

But if this theory is true, then we might suppose that there will be myriads of souls who will never be born, but who nevertheless existed as seed in the loins of Adam, and who will go to hell because they sinned in Adam, even though they never will be born! Why not! Is this so astonishing? If the advocates of original sin can believe that all of humanity sinned in Adam before they were born and began their existence, why can they not see that all the souls who never will be born and never will exist also sinned in him, because they were seed in his loins and potential souls when he sinned? There is no greater problem with the latter than with the former! And if the later is impossible and absurd, so is the former!

4. Another problem is man's idea of an "age of accountability." This idea is completely inconsistent with the idea of original sin. Yet I have never known a Christian who believed in original sin who did not also believe in an "age of accountability." But the two cannot exist together because the doctrine of original sin forbids that children wait until they reach a certain age before they become accountable. According to original sin, we are accountable and guilty for Adam's sin at birth! This leaves no room for a child to come to the "age of accountability" because he is already accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth. In other words, he has reached the "age of accountability" when he is only an innocent little baby.

The idea of an "age of accountability" is completely inconsistent with the doctrine of original sin. Those who have the idea of the one must give up the idea of the other. The two cannot consist together.

But Christians will not give up the idea of an "age of accountability." Why? Because of their irresistible convictions of justice. The conviction that a child cannot be accountable for his actions until he knows the difference between right and wrong is the universal judgment of all men, and this judgment repudiates the doctrine of original sin, which teaches that babies are accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth.

5. The idea of free moral agency is also inconsistent with the doctrine of original sin. Men cannot sin unavoidably because of an inborn sin nature and be free at the same time. If we are born with a sinful nature which makes sin unavoidable, then we are not free. Nor are we moral agents because moral agency implies freedom. Yet I have never known a Christian who believed in original sin who did not believe also that he was a free moral agent. But to be consistent, those who believe in the doctrine of original sin must give up the idea that they are free moral agents, for if we sin unavoidably because of an inborn sin nature, we cannot be free. But Christians will not give up the idea that they are free moral agents. Why? Because of their irresistible convictions that they must be free, meaning able to obey God and do right, or they cannot justly be held accountable for their actions.

6. The doctrine of original sin so clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust.

I remember that, soon after I was converted, I began testifying and preaching in missions, jails, and on street corners. I preached that men are born sinners because that is what I had heard others preach, and I remember that at the time I felt uneasy telling people that they were sinners because they were born sinners. Why? It was because I knew intuitively that we could not be to blame for being born sinners. I was preaching that men were born sinners, even though it conflicted with my irresistible convictions of justice.

Also, recently I heard an old preacher preaching on original sin. He preached the standard sermon, using the standard proof-texts. Then he concluded his sermon almost facetiously with the words, "When I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God all about this." In this way, he tacitly acknowledged his consciousness of the obvious injustice of the original sin doctrine. The very advocates of this doctrine cannot escape their God-given convictions that it is unjust.

7. It is a remarkable fact that there are several conflicting theories of original sin instead of just one. Why is this? The reason is founded in the great problem of original sin: Man's reason testifies that it is unjust. And so, several different theories have been formulated, and have come down to us, each one proposing to have the best legal basis upon which God might be just in condemning the whole human race for the sin of one man. This brings us to the discussion of a theory we have not mentioned up until now, the Arminian Theory of original sin. This theory was formulated by Arminius in the early part of the 17th century and was a reaction to the injustice perceived in the Augustinian theory of original sin. Arminius taught that babies are not guilty for the sin of Adam. They inherit a depraved nature from Adam, but God bestows upon each individual at the dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit sufficient to counteract the effect of their inherited depravity and make obedience possible. So that men are able to obey God if they will cooperate with the special influence of the Holy Spirit. Under his theory, men are guilty only when they consciously and voluntarily commit sin.

Like Arminius did, preachers, Sunday school teachers, and Christians in general make up their own brand of original sin because of compelling convictions of its injustice. For instance, Augustine taught that infants who die without baptism are damned, but this teaching is too offensive to the conscience of most Christians. So they teach a different brand of original sin or remain silent upon this point that is so repulsive to the conscience. They use all the standard proof-texts, such as Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," to prove the doctrine of original sin, but are either unaware of the implications this has for infants who die or come up with a brand of original sin in which babies are not accountable and guilty for original sin until they reach the "age of accountability." They invent a new brand of original sin because their convictions of justice tell them that children cannot be guilty before they actually sin. They are ignorant that the doctrine of original sin makes children "by nature the children of wrath" from the time they are born. They are unaware of the implications and inconsistencies of what they believe and teach. They are teaching what they have been taught, and since they can quote some proof-texts from the Bible, they feel they are on firm ground. They are unaware of the fact that their irresistible convictions of the unjustness of the original sin doctrine has compelled them to come up with a brand new kind of original sin that could only be true if the dogma of original sin were false!

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:9

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. I Tim. 2:4

Chapter Nine: Original Sin Makes God Inconsistent and Imperfect

In Chapter 7 we saw thirteen reasons why the doctrine of original sin is false. In Chapter 8 we saw that the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. In this chapter we will see that if the doctrine of original sin were true, it would destroy the very idea of a perfect and eternally unchanging God. It would make God inconsistent with himself.

First, let's state three irrefutable facts about God:

1. God desires the salvation of all of humanity. 2. But he, in fact, has chosen to save only a part of humanity. 3. God is consistent.

The variable that explains the difference between the all that God desires to save and the some he decides to save must lie outside of God or he would be inconsistent and could not be God. This fact is as certain as the three irrefutable facts stated above are certain. God, who is consistent, cannot desire the salvation of all of humanity and allow any to be lost unless the reason for this lies outside of his choice and his control. If the choice lies with God alone, he most certainly will save all because he desires the salvation of all. However, the fact is God does not save all because he cannot save all, or even some, unless they of their own free will submit to the conditions he has laid down in his Word.

Therefore, the doctrine of original sin with its teaching that man is unable to repent of sin and believe the Gospel because of natural depravity is false. For it would make God the only variable in the salvation of man and therefore, make him inconsistent with himself desiring to save all, while at the same time desiring not to save all; regenerating and enabling some to believe and repent, while at the same time, contrary to his will, leaving others in their state of depravity and inability to be lost. If the doctrine of original sin were true, the salvation of all men would depend solely upon the arbitrary choice of God, and God would be imperfect and inconsistent, desiring the salvation of all mankind but arbitrarily choosing to damn myriads of the souls he did not will should perish.

The variable is and must be in man. And if the variable is in man, then man must be able to respond to God, which means that men cannot be born with a nature that makes it impossible for them to repent and believe the Gospel. Any interpretation of the Bible which puts the variable in God alone is false. For if God were the only variable in man's salvation, then God, who desires the salvation of all men, would certainly save all men!

The fact that God desires to save all but saves only some demonstrates that the variable for the salvation of men resides in the free choice of man and not in some arbitrary election of God. Man, therefore, is not born with a natural inability to obey God. He is not and cannot be born a sinner. We see, then, that the doctrine of original sin and all its sister doctrines the doctrine of natural inability to obey God, the doctrine of the need of a physical regeneration by God before sinners can believe and repent, and the doctrine of an arbitrary election and reprobation by God are all proven to be false doctrines by the fact that God desires the salvation of all, but only saves some.

Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. I John 4:2, 3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:14

Chapter 10: Jesus was a MAN

If the doctrine of original sin is true, one of two things must be true: either Jesus was born a sinner, or he was not a man. Now, the Bible is clear on both points. Jesus was a man, and he was without sin. We know, therefore, that the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh as deceivers and antichrists. What does it mean to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It means to deny that Jesus was a man, with a flesh and blood body like other men. Are there any people today who deny that Christ has come in the flesh? Yes, all those who believe in the doctrine of the sinfulness of human flesh must either believe that Christ, who came in human flesh, was born a sinner or they must deny that he came in the flesh.

It is a serious error to deny the deity of Christ. One cannot be a Christian and deny his deity. John taught that it is equally serious to deny the humanity of Christ:

Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come. I John 4:3

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. II John 7

John wrote his epistles, condemning those "who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" because of the teaching of the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a syncretic religion that combined Christianity with eastern religion, pagan philosophies, and the doctrines of mysticism and gnosis. They denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh because of their philosophical belief that matter is evil. So according to their belief, if Jesus had come with a real human body, he would have been sinful. They denied the real incarnation of Christ, his bodily sufferings on the cross, and his bodily resurrection because of their view that man's material body and all material things are polluted and sinful. They denied that he came in the flesh to save him from sin. His fleshly manifestations were not real but only apparent.

It was from the teachings of gnosticism, with its pagan philosophical belief that all material things are essentially evil, that the doctrine of original sin was born. Augustine, the father of the doctrine of original sin, was for many years a disciple of the Manichaeans, which was a Gnostic sect. His doctrine of physical moral depravity and of inherited physical sinfulness had its roots in the teachings of gnosticism.

Why is all of this important? Because the Bible teaches that Jesus was a man and that he came in the flesh. However, the doctrine of original sin teaches that man, his flesh, and his bodily nature are corrupted and sinful because of Adam's transgression. It is impossible to believe the doctrine of man's inherited bodily sinfulness without either believing that Jesus was born a sinner or that he was not a man. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, either Jesus was born a sinner or he was not a man! Jesus was a man. He did come in the flesh, and he was without sin. Therefore the doctrine of original sin cannot be true. It is a myth and a lie.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. II John 7-11

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. I John 4:2-6

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:14

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. I John 5:4

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. I John 5:18

Chapter 11: Can Christians Live Without Sin?

It is hard to understand how a thinking person can read the Bible and still believe in original sin. The Bible commands men to depart from all sin, to keep God's commandments, to be holy because God is holy, and to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. The Bible teaches that all men ought to live without sin and that they can live without sin by God's grace and the power of his indwelling Holy Spirit. The Bible also teaches that Christians do live without sin and overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil.

But the doctrine of original sin contradicts the Bible and teaches that no man, not even the Christian, can live without committing sin:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. Westminster Confession.

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated. Westminster Confession.

They deplore their inability to love their Redeemer, to keep themselves from sin, to live a holy life in any degree adequate to their own convictions of their obligations...They recognize it as the fruit and evidence of the corruption of their nature derived as a sad inheritance from their first parents. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 273

...whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Larger Catechism.

No man is able...by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed. Larger Catechism

Anyone who has read much of God's Word knows that the above declarations are altogether foreign to the Bible. The Bible teaches that the believer can live without sin. Its pages are filled with promises to the believer that he can live a holy life and have victory over sin, temptation, the world, the flesh, and the devil:

Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matt. 1:21

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:34, 36

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. I John 5:4

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6.

And we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. I John 5:18

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:6

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 24, 25

Now, who are we going to believe? Will we accept the uncertain declarations of mere men or will we accept the sure Word of God? If, after all that God has said and promised in his Holy Book, it is still impossible to live without sin, then God is a liar, deceitful, and insincere. Surely, if it is impossible to live without sin, God knows it! Yet he promises victory over sin. He commands holiness and Christian perfection. "Be ye holy, for I am holy." I Peter 1:15. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as you father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48. Would God command us to walk in Christian holiness and Christian perfection if he knew it was impossible for us? I cannot believe it! Do those who propagate the evil doctrine of original sin know its implications on the character of God? If God knows that we can't obey him, if he knows that we are born with a corrupt sinful nature which makes obedience impossible, then he is insincere and deceitful in commanding us to do what he knows is impossible. And if God knows that we are born with a sinful nature that makes sin necessary, then all his promises of grace and power to keep us from sin are lies.

God cannot lie. It is the doctrine of original sin which is a lie! For the Word of God reveals that God has always had his saints. He has always had a people that feared him, loved him, and kept his commandments. He has always had a people that did not break his commandments daily in thought, word, and deed: There was Job, of whom God said, "A perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil." There was Enoch who "walked with God" and "was not, for God took him." There was Zacharias and Elizabeth who "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." There was John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. There was Joseph who was sold into Egypt, but who loved his brethren who sold him into Egypt, and kept himself pure in the matter of Potiphar's wife. There was Daniel who was taken captive to Babylon, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and all the holy prophets and holy apostles, and all the saints of both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly teaches that God's people can and do live without sin. Therefore, the doctrine of original sin, which teaches otherwise, is a myth and a lie.

The four Scripture verses quoted earlier in this chapter (I John 3:6, I John 3:9, I John 5:4, I John 5:18) clearly teach that Christians do not have to commit sin. They show that there is no original sin, no corrupt sinful nature that makes sin necessary in the life of the Christian. Two of these verses have been very difficult for Christians to understand. They are I John 3:6 and I John 3:9. I John 3:6 seems to teach that anyone who commits sin never really knew God in the first place, and I John 3:9 seems to teach that it is absolutely impossible for the Christian to commit sin. An understanding of the tenses of the Greek verb does away with this misunderstanding.

In I John 3:6 the verb form menon is a present participle which emphasizes continuing action. It means is abiding or is remaining. The verb form hamartanei is the present active. It can denote either continuous or simple action. It means sins or is sinning. Next, the verb form hamartanon is used. It is a present participle which denotes continuous action. It means is sinning. The last two verb forms in I John 3:6 are heoraken and egnoken. They are both perfect active. The perfect denotes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. So that heoraken means seen and continued to see and egnoken means known and continued to know. I John 3:6, then, has the following meaning:

"Whosoever is remaining in him sins not; whosoever is sinning has not seen him and continued to see him, neither known him and continued to know him."

So the fact that a Christian may commit sin does not mean that he never really knew God. What it does mean is that by committing sin, he is not continuing to abide in Christ, and by committing sin, he does not continue to see and know Christ, whom he once saw and knew. You cannot sin against God and remain in him at the same time. You cannot sin against God and continue to see and know him at the same time.

In I John 3:9 the verb form gegennemenos is a perfect passive participle which emphasizes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. It means has been born and continues to be born. The verb forms poiei, menei, and dunatai are all present active which denotes continuous or simple action in the present. The meaning of each one, respectively, is: do or is doing, remain or is remaining, and can or is able. The verb form hamartanein is a present infinitive which emphasizes continuous action. It means to continue to sin or to go on sinning. The verb form gegennetai is the perfect passive. It denotes completed action in the past with results that continue into the present. It means has been born and continues to be born. I John 3:9, then has the following meaning:

"Whosoever has been born of God and continues to be born of God does not do sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot continue to sin, because he has been born of God and continues to be born of God."

This verse does not teach that it is impossible for the Christian to sin. What it does teach is that it is impossible to stand begotten of God and go on sinning. The born-again experience and the committing of sin are self-excluding. One cannot exist where the other exists. If you have the seed of God in you and if you stand begotten of God, you cannot commit sin. If you commit sin, you cannot stand begotten of God.

These two verses militate mightily against the doctrine of original sin. They teach that the Christian who remains in Christ and continues to see and know Christ and continues to stand begotten of God both does not and cannot sin. Surely if it is true that "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not," then there is no original sin, no corrupt Adamic sin nature in the Christian that makes it necessary for the Christian to commit sin. If it is true that "Whatsoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God," then surely there is no indwelling sin in the Christian that makes sin necessary and obedience to God's commandments impossible.

God testifies that "His commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." I John 5:3, 4. If "The commandments of God are not grievous..." and if "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world..." then there can be no original sin that makes God's commandments grievous and that makes them so impossible to keep that believers cannot overcome the world. The commandments of God are not grievous. They are not more than we can bear. They do not require what is impossible for us to do.

No, God is not a hard taskmaster. He requires of us only what we are able to do. If we had a sin nature which made it impossible for us to serve and obey him, he would not command: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." He would not say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." But God does command us to be holy. He does require us to be perfect. So either God is requiring impossibilities and he has commandments that are grievous, or there is no original sin.

I John 3:6 and 3:9 also militate mightily against the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" and "once a child of God, always a child of God." Those who believe that once you are saved, you can never be lost equate physical birth and spiritual birth, and say, "I may be a disobedient child of my father, but I will forever remain my father's child." They seem not to realize that everything that is true about physical birth is not true about spiritual birth. There is an analogy between physical and spiritual birth, but no equation. If there is an equation between physical and spiritual birth, then we must forever remain the children of the devil. Isn't that true? Doesn't the Bible teach that all sinners are children of the devil? We should realize that we were all children of the devil before we ever knew God and became his children. John 8:44, I John 3:8, 10, 12. Must we, therefore, forever remain the children of the devil because we were once his children? There is no equation between physical and spiritual birth. One cannot continue in sin and remain a child of God. "He that committeth sin is of the devil" and not of God. I John 3:8.

I John 3:6 and 3:9 show that the Christian who remains in Christ and stands begotten of God does not and cannot commit sin. This shows that it is a myth that there is a corrupt sinful nature inherited from Adam in Christians that makes sin in their lives a necessity as long as they are in this life. Nevertheless, men still plead a sinful nature as an excuse for their sins. They plead a sinful nature as an excuse for lukewarm and partial service to God. Then, even though they know they are defrauding God, they will say, "I may be a disobedient child of my Father, but I will always remain my Father's child." Oh, how men deceive themselves who think they can disobey God in some things and still remain the children of God for their obedience in other things! Such a religion is motivated by selfishness and is the religion of devils.

The doctrine of original sin is an evil doctrine and a doctrine of lies. It makes men deny that they are able to obey God and makes them excuse themselves while they commit sin. But there is no excuse for sin. If there were, God could not and would not command men to turn from all sin. But God does command men to turn from all sin and because God commands men to turn from sin we know that men can live without sin and that the doctrine of original sin is a lie.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. I John 5:4

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. I John 5:18

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev. 2:6

So has thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Rev. 2:15

Chapter 12: God Hates False Doctrine

"I hate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans." Rev. 2:15. The Bible does not tell us who the Nicolaitans were. But most Bible scholars believe they were one of the Gnostic sects. Gnosticism began to have a corrupting influence upon Christianity as early as the first century A.D. John, in two of his epistles, refuted the doctrine taught by them that Christ did not come in the flesh, in a physical body. I John 4:2, 3; II John 7. This Gnostic doctrine was taught to preserve Christ from the pollution of sin, since they believed that man's flesh was inherently sinful. Whether the Nicolaitans were or were not one of the Gnostic sects cannot be conclusively proved. They probably were, but that is not the important point. What is important is to know that they taught false doctrine and that God hates false doctrine because all false doctrine works evil.

One of the veiled objections I have heard to the question of whether men are born sinners or not, is: "What difference does it make? We are all sinners and need to be saved anyway." This objection implies that it doesn't make a difference whether we were born sinners or not, as long as we recognize we are sinners and need to be saved. However, what we believe does make a difference. We need to do away with this friendly, cozy attitude toward false doctrine that says, "What difference does it make?" Doesn't what we believe concerning the origin of our sin have an effect upon our conduct and how we view sin, God and the Bible? Doesn't it make a difference in our attitude toward our sin, our guilt, and our ill desert whether or not we believe that we are condemned for a sin which we did not commit, and which was committed thousands of years before we had our existence? Doesn't it make a difference in our attitude toward God whether or not we believe that the heathen, who have never heard the Gospel and had a chance to be saved, were created by God with a corrupt sinful nature which makes sin unavoidable and their damnation inevitable? Doesn't it make a difference in our attitude toward living a separated and a holy Christian life whether or not we believe that we are born with a morally depraved physical constitution that makes sin unavoidable and holiness impossible?

Doesn't this false doctrine make a difference in our thinking concerning all the true doctrines of the Bible? John had to denounce the false teachers of his day who would not accept the biblical doctrines of Christ's incarnation, i.e., that Christ came in the flesh, because they believed the false doctrine that the physical nature of man was polluted and inherently sinful. And now, those who believe in the doctrine of original sin are compelled by this false belief to believe that Christ was not really a man with a nature like other men, as the Bible teaches, but that he was somehow different in his humanity, with a different human nature than all the rest of mankind. A belief in this false doctrine does make a difference. It affects how we view and interpret all the true doctrines of the Bible. It affects our attitude toward God, the Creator of our nature. If affects our attitude toward our sin and our guilt. It affects our attitude toward everything that is connected with the doctrine of sin. God hates this Nicolaitan doctrine because it has a corrupting influence on the Christian's conduct, attitudes, and thinking. No other false doctrine has so profoundly warped the Christian's understanding of the biblical doctrines of sin, holiness, and God's grace to deliver from sin. This false doctrine makes sin necessary, holiness impossible, and the power of God's grace nothing but a feeble, empty promise. Listen to what the doctrine of original sin promises the Christian:

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated..." Westminster Confession

By reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. Westminster Confession

They deplore their inability to love their Redeemer, to keep themselves from sin, to live a holy life in any degree adequate to their own convictions of their obligations...They recognize it as the fruit and evidence of the corruption of their nature derived as a sad inheritance from their first parents. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 273

No man is able by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed. Larger Catechism

But the Word of God promises something completely contrary to the false teaching of original sin. It promises a new birth, a new life, and total deliverance from all sin. Paul said, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new." I Cor. 5:17. The angel said to Joseph: "Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin...If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:34, 36 Paul repeated again and again in Romans that the Christian is made free from sin through the grace of God in Christ Jesus:

How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Rom. 6:2

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Rom. 6:6

Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness. Rom. 6:17, 18

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom. 6:22

Is God telling lies when he makes these promises? If the doctrine of original sin is true, he is, and he is also powerless to destroy the dominion of sin in the heart of those who put their trust in him. Such a low concept of God's grace does not bring much honor and glory to him. In fact, those who really believe the doctrine of original sin gravely dishonor him by believing the doctrine that his grace and the presence of his indwelling Holy Spirit are infinitely less powerful than sin.

The doctrine of original sin is a grossly false doctrine that demeans the power of God's grace and soothes the conscience of worldly professors of religion. Great evil has been done in the church by this false philosophy of sin. It should be banished from pulpits, and the truth of the liberating power of God's grace preached to those who hunger for God's righteousness and holiness in their lives.

What are you going to do with the doctrine of original sin? Randolf S. Foster makes some penetrating comments on the moral turpitude of clinging to error once we know the truth:

The known and willful support or perpetuation of an error is a crime against humanity and a sin against Him who is Truth. To cling to error or defend error when one has reason to suspect it may be error reveals a heart that does not fully love the truth for the truth's sake.

To strenuously support and shield from scrutiny what we believe when we are aware that its truth is questionable reveals a heart that is not completely candid. We are supposed to be children of light, and to be afraid to shine light upon what we believe shows a love still for darkness.

To stop short in curable error is criminal; to cherish delusions after we have been forced to suspect them is debasing to our moral nature.

To persist in a belief against evidence, to refuse evidence, or avoid proof...shows insincerity and lack of moral integrity.

Slavish adherence to inherited traditions, merely on the ground of their wide acceptance and long continuance, would forbid the overthrow of error and the acceptance of redeeming truth. If a doctrine cannot bear the light of the Scriptures and reason If it is shown to be false and unreasonable under their burning light, it must consent to shrivel up and perish with all other error.

One more passage from Randolf S. Foster's Studies in Theology states:

Although all men have an innate and genuine thirst after truth and a corresponding disgust for error, there may exist, strange as it may seem, extreme opposition to the acceptance of certain truths an absolute hatred of them, because they differ from what we now believe, because they require changes in us which we do not want to make, because they require the confession that we have been mistaken and have held error so the mind will not give them fair treatment It hardens against them and imposes unjust tests and will not give them the courtesy of fair and respectful attention. Prejudices, vicious habits of thought, pride of opinion and of denominational belief, ignorance, suspicion, bigotry, blind following of religious and denominational leaders so becloud and benumb the mind that it cannot and will not see its own errors, or the truth of others when with a little unprejudiced examination the truth could be seen.

To cling to a doctrine which we know to be false is sin. God hates false doctrine, and as Christians, we cannot take neutral ground respecting the things that God hates. With God, there is no neutral ground.

The doctrine of original sin has corrupted Christian theology and spawned a false teaching of inability that excuses sin in the Church of Christ. It is difficult to find a Christian today who believes it is possible to live without sin. "The key of knowledge" has been taken away by this doctrine. Ministers "have not entered in themselves" and they have "hindered them that were entering in." Matt. 23:13, Luke 11:52. With this grossly false doctrine men have been taught that they can never expect to fully obey their Lord until they die and go to heaven. They have been taught that they will live more or less in rebellion against God as long as they are here on earth. What a low opinion this doctrine permits men to have of God's power and sanctifying grace! The church's idea of the grace of God is only that it forgives us while we continue in sin. God hates this Nicolaitan doctrine! Can we go on giving place to such a God dishonoring doctrine? Can we accept a doctrine that allows men to believe that they will go to heaven without holiness? Can we coddle a doctrine that excuses sin in the churches and that stumbles professing Christians into hell? Can we any longer embrace a doctrine that God hates?

13 Footnotes

1. Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1953, p. 249.

2. Morris Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980, p. 123.

3. Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1953, p. 252.

4. See Appendix A, The Nature and Attributes of Sin, p. 165.

5. Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, Jennings & Graham, Cincinnati, 1912, pp. 313-314.

6. See further commentary on Romans 5:12-21 in the anthology.

7. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Fleming H. Revell, Old Tappan, 1969, p. 597.

8. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Wm B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1946, pp. 223-224.

9. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1972, pp. 241-242.

10. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 198-199

11. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 615-616.

12. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 308.

13. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 618.

14. Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, pp. 320-321.

15. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 252.

16. Albert Henry Newman, Manual of Church History, Vol I, The American Baptist Publication society, Philadelphia, 1942, p. 362.

17. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., Russell & Russell, new york, 1958, p. 102.

18. Newman, Manual of Church History, Vol I, p. 197.

19. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., p. 211.

20. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., p. 212.

21. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., pp. 212-214.

22. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., p. 78.

23. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., p. 310.

24. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., p. 310.

25. See Appendix B. The Age of Accountability, p. 169.

26. See Appendix C. The Rational Moral Nature of Man, p. 173.

27. See Appendix D, The bible and Man's Ratinal Moral Nature, p. 175.

28. See Appendix E, Temptation, The occasion of all Sin, p. 177.

29. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, pp. 276-277.

30. See Appendix F, The Folly of Taking Text Out of Context, p. 179.

31. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, p. 320.

32. Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, p. 123.

33. See Appendix G. Bible Texts Can Be Used to Prove Lies, p. 187.

34. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, pp. 250-252.

35. Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol V., pp. 211-212.

36. George Park Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1901, p. 196.

37. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 308.

38. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, p. 320.

39. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 597.

40. Randolf S. Foster, Studies in Theology, Vol. 1, Cranston & Stowe, Cincinnati, 1890, pp. 9,10,18,25,29.

41. Foster, Studies in Theology, Vol. 1, p. 31.

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, Albert, Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1843.

Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1972.

Finney, Charles G., An Autobiography, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1908.

Finney, Charles G., Lectures on Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1953.

Finney, Charles G., Sermons on Gospel Themes, Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1876.

Fisher, George Park, History of Christian Doctrine, C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1901.

Foster, Randolf S., Studies in Theology, Vol. I, Cranston & Stowe, Cincinnati, 1890.

Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, Vol. IV & V, Russell & Russell, New York, 1958.

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1946.

King James Version of the Bible

Kline, Morris, Mathematics in Western Culture, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980.

Kubo, Sakae, A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1982.

Larger Catechism

The Living Bible, Tyndale House Publisher, Wheaton, 1974.

Machen, J. Gresham, New Testament Greek for Beginners, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1963.

Newman, Albert Henry, Manual of Church History, Vol. I, The American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1942.

Seeburg, R., History of Doctrine, Vol. I & II, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1954.

Shank, Robert, Life in the Son, Westcott Publishers, Springfield, 1961.

Sheldon, Henry C., System of Christian Doctrine, Jennings & Graham, Cincinnati, 1912.

Shorter Catechism

Strong, A. H., Systematic Theology, Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, 1969.

Stuart, Moses, Commentary on Romans, W. F. Draper, Andover, 1868.

Thiessen, Henry C., Lectures in Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1952.

Westminster Confession

*Copyright (c) 1995 by Tom Overstreet -You may copy this for Personal and Ministry use only, NOT for commercial gain.