Adam’s Transgression

Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden has led some to believe that we are all guilty of Adam’s sin. This doctrine is commonly referred to as “original sin.” One religious group defines original sin as

…a consequence of Adam’s first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born due to our origin or descent from Adam.

Western religious thinkers, starting with Augustine, have regarded this doctrine as a fundamental Christian belief. However, the Bible presents several significant objections that merit our attention.

Adam’s Transgression and Ezekiel 18

Ezekiel was called to prophetic office during Israel’s Babylonian captivity (606-536 B.C.). Among his many prophetic duties, Ezekiel corrected erroneous doctrines. Ezekiel 18:2 records a relevant example, ” ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ ” The context betrays this proverb’s meaning: the captive Israelites deemed their Babylonian incarceration (“the children’s teeth are set on edge”) a consequence of their forefather’s iniquities (“The fathers have eaten sour grapes”). This generation judged themselves guiltless and their captivity an inherited taint. Such a notion contradicts other statements regarding the captivity. For example Isaiah 65:6-7,

Behold, it is written before Me: I will not keep silence, but will repay — even repay into their bosom– Your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together,”)

The Lord soundly refutes this doctrine. Ezekiel 18:20 concisely summarizes His judgment:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

God’s judgment unequivocally refutes an, “hereditary stain of iniquity”. God’s position is this:  He accounts the individual either guilty or righteous, not their posterity.

Adam’s Transgression and Jesus

Accepting “original sin” necessitates a reexamination of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

The Synod of Dordt convened in 1618-1619 to codify “Calvinism.” Calvinism is a system of Christian belief based largely on the theology of the French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564). Like Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin believed in “original sin.” In the Third and Fourth Heads, Article 2, the Synod of Dordt states, “Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent…”. The Synod of Dordt acknowledges the presence of original sin, yet they exclude Jesus from this hereditary taint.

Christ’s exception is necessary considering the scriptures that affirm His innocence (eg Hebrews 4:15) and His descent from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). However, establishing such an exception requires proponents of “original sin” to accept the following logic:

• If all Adam’s descendants inherited his sin.
• And if Jesus was Adam’s descendant according to the flesh.
• Then Jesus DID NOT inherit the sin of Adam!!!???

Applying basic logic leads to an illogical conclusion that “original sin” claims. If “original sin” is true, how can Christ descend from Adam without inheriting his forefather’s taint of guilt? This simple flaw reveals one of “original sin’s” theological weaknesses.

What about babies?

Scripture has long upheld childhood innocence as a Christian quality. Luke 18:15-17 records an instance where the Jewish public brought their infants to receive Jesus’s blessing. The disciples rebuked the public, but Jesus corrected their refusal with these words:

Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.

Jesus praises the virtuous innocence of infants as a sign of true discipleship. In a parallel account, Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3). Christ exalts the virtues of infancy and childhood. Furthermore, Heh qualities are necessary to enter God’s kingdom.

Proponents of “original sin” teach that Adam’s sin tainted the infants whom Jesus blessed and acclaimed. This raises a couple of questions.

1. If “original sin” were actual, why did Jesus choose children as an example of Christian disposition?
2. Why would Jesus praise the flawed character of children as requisite for eternal life?

Once again, we find a reasonable objection to the doctrine of “original sin.”

Summary

To sum up, here are my objections to the doctrine of original sin.

• God considers individuals either guilty or righteous. Their guilt or righteousness does not fall on the shoulders of their children, grandchildren, and so on. Ezekiel’s preaching clearly refutes this notion.
• We observe a further conflict between Christ’s nature and the tenets of “original sin.” If Adam’s sin passed on to all of his descendants, how can we call Jesus sinless?
• Additionally, Jesus cites the virtues of infancy and childhood as essential for discipleship and eternal life. If a baby receives the taint of Adam’s sin, why does Jesus extol their innocence?

These scriptural objections should, at the very least, make us pause dramatically when evaluating the validity of “original sin.”