Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll be analyzing prooftexts and arguments in favor of original sin.
Disclaimer: (This article is an ongoing project. It will be updated with more analysis regularly)
OUR POSITION
WHAT ARE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION?
1. Human mortality
2. Humanity having an inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt
3. A fallen world with pain, suffering, and corruption
4. All humans from conception being held personally guilty in God's sight for Adam's sin
If we were to separate verses into categorical points of what they say, verses that say all humans are mortal because of the fall are not a point of contention. We affirm that mortality for all humans is one of the consequences of the fall. Also, verses that talk about the sinfulness of humanity are not a point of contention. We affirm that all humans have sinful inclinations as a result of the fall. The point we have contention with is point 4 listed above. Specifically what we need to see from Scripture for original sin to stand are verses that say the actual guilt of Adam's first sin is either inherited or imputed to the souls of all humans from conception. As a result of this, all mankind would be guilty of sin in God's sight from conception.
“Stated summarily, the Western (or Augustinian) doctrines of the fall and original sin affirm (1) that Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s primordial commandment against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16 – 17; 3:6) caused a fundamental deformation in humanity’s relationship to God, each other, and the rest of creation; and (2) that this “fall”includes among its consequences that all human beings thereafter are born into a state of estrangement from God –an “original" sin that condemns all individuals prior to and apart from their committing any “actual” sins in time and space.” - McFarland, In Adam’s Fall, p. 29-30
McFarland succinctly points out this primary distinction of the original sin perspective that there is a perpetual inheritance of an "original sin" which condemns everyone before committing any sins of their own. This encapsulates point 4 listed above. It's this point that we'll need to see from the original sin prooftexts as it's the point we contend against.
Before discussing the prooftexts in this article, we should note that we have separate articles for a few prooftexts that are more popular and require additional attention. They are as follows:
1. Romans 5:12-21, to read our article on this prooftext, see here.
2. Ephesians 2:1-3, to read our article on this prooftext, see here.
3. Psalm 51:5, to read our article on this prooftext, see here.
This article will not cover these three passages. Instead, we will cover other prooftexts that range in popularity.
ANALYZING THE PROOFTEXTS
Prooftext #1: 1 Corinthians 15:22
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Explanation:
The interpretive points of contention with this verse are primarily twofold. Firstly, what is the death that Paul is referring to? Is it physical or spiritual? Second, when does this death occur?
Notice the tense of the words in this verse. We see an indication that the dying is present tense; it's something that is presently going on. However, the being made alive is future tense. Those in Christ shall be made alive in the future. Perhaps if Paul said that all died in Adam when he first sinned, the view of inherited/imputed guilt would be plausible in this verse. Unfortunately, that's not the case. When the context is examined, it becomes clear that Paul is referring to physical mortality in the first half of the verse. Additionally, physical immortality is referred to in the second half. The flesh of all humans being made mortal as a consequence of the fall isn't a point of contention.
1Co 15:20-21 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:42-44 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:52-54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The overall theme of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the body. The verses directly preceding this prooftext tell us that physical death is the type of death Paul has in mind. Even if we hypothetically conceded that Paul has spiritual death in mind, the burden of proof would be on our interlocutors to prove that this death occurs at conception due to inheriting Adam's guilt rather than becoming spiritually dead and condemned indirectly "in Adam" due to personal sin. Additionally, our interlocutors lean toward Traducianism if they insist this refers to our non-physical souls. If our interlocutor affirms that God is the creator of human souls, this prooftext weakens immensely. Unlike our physical bodies, our immaterial souls don't have their origin in Adam.
To summarize, Paul is saying that in Adam there is physical mortality but in Christ, there is physical immortality. We are physically in Adam by him being our ancestor and our being born physically. We are physically in Christ by our faith and being born again spiritually. Those who have faith and have been born again spiritually will be raised incorruptible from the dead in the future by the working of God.
Prooftext #2: Psalm 58:3-6
Psa 58:3-6 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
Explanation:
We have a few notable issues with these verses being used as prooftexts for inherited/imputed Adamic guilt.
First, at most, this passage refers only to personal sins and the sinful inclinations we have coming to fruition at an extremely young age. This isn't a point of contention. We affirm that all humans have sinful inclinations and tendencies as a consequence of the fall. This verse doesn't say anything about infants being guilty of Adam's sin.
Second, there are compelling reasons to disregard this passage as making a universal claim about the ontology and anthropology of all humans from conception. This passage speaks specifically against the wicked and the wicked are contrasted with the righteous in the same chapter. We don't see a contextual reason to read verses 3-6 as a universal claim regarding the state of all humans.
Psa 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.
In between verses 3-6 and 10-11, the Psalmist speaks of God breaking the teeth of the wicked. He speaks of the wicked melting, passing away, and being cut into pieces. This is common in the Psalms. We see similar parallels between the wicked and the righteous in Psalm 7:11, 11:5, 37:17, 37:21, 75:10, 125:3, and many more. Therefore, this prooftext falls short in this regard as well.
Third, the passage actually indicates that the spiritual condition of these wicked people worsens upon birth. They become guilty rather than always being that way. They are estranged and go astray after their birth. This fact seems to vindicate our position. The language doesn't convey that being estranged was always a reality and condition of all humans from conception. Rather, this is something people become at a point in life after conception.
Fourth, what are the ramifications if our interlocutors take these verses in the most literal sense as a statement about the nature and state of all humans from birth? Psalm 58:6 speaks of these wicked people having teeth that can be broken in their mouths. Psalm 58:3 says these same people are speaking sentences that contain lies. Can anyone demonstrate and observe these things happening the day a baby is born? If we can't, then it seems to follow that this passage doesn't apply to all humans from birth and that this passage is most likely using a hyperbolic expression to emphasize that sin and rebellion manifest early on in life.
Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)
One example of a passage that is likely deploying a hyperbolic expression in the same manner, is Job when he speaks of his just and charitable behavior towards the poor and widow from a tender age. I don't think Job is saying that he was guiding these people the day he was born. Rather, it means he was like this as far back as he can remember. It was something he was doing at a young age. We argue the Psalmist in chapter 58 is likely making a similar point. The point is that this group of wicked people has had a high degree of rebellion as far back as their own actions can be remembered when their entire life is viewed. The wicked in question have been rebellious from a young age. As soon as their faculties developed and were capable of exercising reason they began rebelling. This taking place isn't alarming or unexpected when the sinful inclinations of our flesh are coupled with being in sinful environments from birth.
Prooftext #3: Isaiah 48:8
Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.
Explanation:
Before diving into the context of Isaiah 48 we need to note a few preliminary observations. If Isaiah is referring to inherited/imputed Adamic guilt here, those who are "called a transgressor from the womb" need to be descriptive of all humans who have ever been born. Is that who Isaiah is talking about in the context?
Additionally, even if Isaiah were referring to all humans from birth, this would not necessarily prove inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. This verse doesn't say what the source or cause of the transgression is. There is no mention of a successive, perpetual, and unending line of guilt being passed down to all humans as a result of Adam’s sin and thus we are transgressors by possessing Adam’s guilt.
When we examine the context of Isaiah 48, we quickly realize that verse 8 is about the nation of Israel. The verse isn't speaking about each individual person who's ever existed from birth. Isaiah is referring to the time of Israel's civil birth and that as a people they have been transgressing against God from the beginning of their national existence.
Isa 48:1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.
Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Isa 48:17-19 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea: Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.
To summarize briefly, Isaiah 48 is about Israel being refined for God's glory. Additionally, the Lord laments over Israel's past disobedience and mentions how they'd be much better off now had they obeyed and believed in the past. From here we're going to argue that Isaiah likely has the exodus from Egypt in mind regarding Israel being a "transgressor from the womb." There are multiple contextual clues that lead us to this conclusion.
Compare -
Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.
Deu 9:7 Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.
Deu 9:23-24 Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadeshbarnea, saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and ye believed him not, nor hearkened to his voice. Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you.
Compare -
Isa 48:4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;
Deu 9:13 Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Isa 48:10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
Deu 4:20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Eze 16:3-6 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
Hosea mentions that Israel was called out of Egypt when they were a child. They were called "from the womb" so to speak. Ezekiel says that from the nativity and birth of the Jewish nation, they soon became polluted. This supports our understanding that being a "transgressor from the womb" in Isaiah's mind is referencing Israel as a nation rebelling against God from the day they departed Egypt. Isaiah is not talking about the spiritual condition of all individual babies from their physical birth. Therefore, it's inappropriate to use this verse as proof of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt.
Prooftexts #4-6: Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Jeremiah 17:9
Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Ecc 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Explanation:
We're going to be looking at these three verses together because they make the same point. However, the primary verse of these three when dealing with original sin and inherited/imputed guilt is Genesis 8:21. Ecclesiastes 9:3 and Jeremiah 17:9 are more commonly used to argue for total depravity/total inability. We won't get too deep into the weeds regarding that here though. These verses are sometimes utilized out of impulse when an interlocutor of ours doesn't fully grasp our position. Of course, we affirm that all humans have a disposition and inclination toward sin as a consequence of the fall. As soon as our faculties have developed and we have the capacity to make moral decisions, we all go astray and sin against God. We all move towards wickedness and evil due to our flesh, sinful influences, and the sinful environments we find ourselves in. The question isn't whether or not human hearts are wicked, deceitful, etc. The real question is when does this happen? Is this true from conception? Or do these evil imaginations begin sometime soon after at a young age? If it is true from conception, all that could be argued from that point is that humans are personally guilty of sin from conception. (But not many of our interlocutors would affirm this. Most affirm infants are only guilty of original sin and not their own yet.) These verses don't say anything about Adam's sin, inheriting guilt, or anything else that could be possibly interpreted as inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. This is where Genesis 8:21 comes into play. It's said that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Some argue that "youth" in this verse refers to infancy. Is infancy a good understanding of what youth means in this context?
Jdg 8:20 And he said unto Jether his firstborn, Up, and slay them. But the youth drew not his sword: for he feared, because he was yet a youth.
1Sa 17:33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
1Sa 17:42 And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.
Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Zec 13:5 But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
Strong's definition of the underlying Hebrew: "נָעוּר nâʻûwr, naw-oor'; or נָעֻר nâʻur; and (feminine) נְעֻרָה nᵉʻurâh; properly, passive participle from H5288 as denominative; (only in plural collective or emphatic form) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people):—childhood, youth."
These few verses indicate that "infancy" is not the best understanding of youth in this context. Rather, broadly speaking the word is often used to refer to the period between infancy and adulthood. Infants don't draw swords, fight in military battles, get married, or keep cattle. King David was said to be in his youth when he fought Goliath. Therefore, the imagination of human hearts being evil from our youth certainly can and does refer to a young age. It's just that this young age likely begins soon after infancy. So these prooftexts fall short of proving original sin on multiple fronts. We have another point to ponder though. Are these "evil imaginations" a reference to intrusive thoughts?
Ieso Health: "Intrusive thoughts are unwanted thoughts that can pop into our heads without warning, at any time. They’re often repetitive – with the same kind of thought cropping up again and again – and they can be disturbing or even distressing."
Katie Lear, LCMHC, RPT, RDT: "There is no set age at which intrusive thoughts start. However, they may be more common or noticeable in tweens and teens. Intrusive thoughts are sometimes a symptom of OCD, which can show up as early as age 7 or 8 and as late as the teens or early twenties. In my child therapy office, it’s usually middle or high school kids who are able to put the weird experience of having unwanted thoughts into words. They are old enough to think about their own thinking and notice their thoughts as they pass by, so they know that something doesn’t feel right."
Little Otter Health: "Unwanted thoughts that elicit anxiety can appear at any age but often begin between ages 8 to 12 and in between the late teen years and early adulthood. Some have been as early as 5-years-old when diagnosed with compulsive thinking."
We’re dipping into extra-biblical issues and childhood psychology at this point. However, our understanding of youth corroborates with the age range at which children begin having intrusive thoughts. It's plausible that these could be the "evil imaginations" that begin from youth in Genesis 8:21.
Prooftext #7: Job 14:4
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Explanation:
1. Humans are unclean.
2. Humans are brought out of their human mothers.
3.Therefore, humans are unclean by nature.
Job 14:1-2 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
Job 14:7-10 For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
Job 14:11-14 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Job 14:21-22 His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.
Job continually makes mention of physical pain, death, and his desire to return to his former state throughout this chapter. Job makes reference to physical death at least half a dozen times in this chapter alone. Verses 1-2 actually offer disconfirmation of inherited/imputed guilt. Man isn't full of trouble from the beginning of life. Rather, after a period of time we become full of trouble. We begin as a flower and are later cut down and continue not. In verse 14, Job talks about his positive belief in a future change for the better.
Job 2:7-8 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.
Job 3:10-11 Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes. Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
Job 7:4-6 When I lie down, I say, When shall I arise, and the night be gone? and I am full of tossings to and fro unto the dawning of the day. My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust; my skin is broken, and become loathsome. My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent without hope.
We need to remember that Job has been suffering physically since chapter 2 of this book. Job 14:4 is not best understood to be describing inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. Rather, the verse is best understood to be pointing out the physical pain, suffering, corruption, and death that we all face as consequences of the fall. None of these are points of contention that we have with the original sin perspective. This is clearly what Job is lamenting in context. In chapter 3, Job laments his birth and wishes he was miscarried to avoid the sorrows of life he would come to face. We are physically unclean, imperfect, and suffer from corruption. Mothers don't give birth to perfect genetic children who don't feel pain and don't return to dust. We all suffer from physical infirmities and eventually die. We all groan within ourselves waiting for a day in the future when God will restore and clean our unclean flesh. In that day our mortal bodies will be made incorruptible and immortal. This is the theme of Job 14.
Prooftexts #8-11: Job 5:7, Job 15:14, Job 15:35, Job 25:4-6
Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Job 25:4-6 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Explanation:
We're going to deal with these four prooftexts together. When reading the book of Job, it's important to recognize that there are multiple people speaking throughout the book, and not every person who speaks is approved by God in the end.
Job 42:7-8 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.
We know at the end of Job that God says his wrath is kindled against Job's friends and that He doesn't accept them for speaking in error. In light of this, it's highly likely that Job's friends don't have sound theology. Therefore, it would be wise to not build the doctrines we affirm on their statements. Doing so would be like using statements from the Pharisees or prophets of Baal to build doctrine. When a book or chapter of the Bible is a dialogue and contains back-and-forth conversation it's extremely important to keep track of who is speaking and when.
So who's speaking in these four passages? Concerning Job 5:7, Eliphaz began speaking in 4:1 and Job himself doesn't speak again until 6:1. It's Eliphaz who's speaking in Job 5:7. Concerning the two verses in Job 15, Eliphaz began speaking in 15:1 and Job himself doesn't speak again until 16:1. So again, it's Eliphaz who's speaking in Job 15:14 and 15:35. Concerning Job 25:4-6, Bildad began speaking in 25:1 and Job himself doesn't speak again until 26:1. Therefore, it's Bildad who's speaking in Job 25:4-6.
"And Job 15 says, "What is man that he should be clean?" Or, "Who is born of a woman that he should be righteous?” How much more abominable and filthy is man, “who drinketh iniquity like water?” From the very start, man is sinful, and therefore death is operative as a principle, and as soon as he gets into life and gets old enough, he will inevitably, what? Sin." - John MacArthur, Death through Adam; Life through Christ
It is shockingly common for proponents of original sin to cite these verses to bolster their doctrine. John MacArthur, a prominent Calvinistic pastor is one example of this. All of these prooftexts are citing Job's friends who are under God's wrath for speaking in error. If hypothetically these verses were articulating the distinctions of original sin, it would actually serve as disconfirmation of the doctrine because the doctrine would be coming from the mouths of those whose words are condemned by God. We see massive Christological issues with these proof texts. If Job 15:14 is saying that nobody born of a woman is righteous, this would imply that Jesus wasn't righteous at his incarnation. If Job 25:4-6 is saying that man and the son of man are worms, this would imply that Jesus is a worm as well. If our interlocutors want to build doctrine from Job's friends, the burden is on them to reconcile these implications and make it fit with the rest of Scripture. That burden isn't on us though. We agree with God that Job's friends spoke in error. They aren't a good source of truth. Our interlocutors cite them at their own peril.
Prooftext #12: Proverbs 22:15
Pro 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Explanation:
Like most others, this prooftext says nothing about Adam or guilt being inherited/imputed perpetually. This verse doesn't touch on any points of contention we have with the original sin perspective. All that this verse can demonstrate is the personal guilt and sinful inclinations of children. The question we need to address here is regarding what age range is meant by "child" in this verse. Our interlocutors likely desire for this verse to be speaking of infancy in order to push guilt back as far and early as they possibly can. The underlying Hebrew word for "child" in this verse is נַעַר naʻar H5288. It does have a wide semantic domain and can refer to a newborn infant. Verses like Exodus 2:6, Judges 13:5-7, and 1 Samuel 4:21 render the word as "child" and it's clearly a newborn infant that's being referred to in context. However, the term is also rendered as "young man" 76 times as well as a "servant" 54 times in addition to other words that don't convey infancy. Because the semantic domain is quite wide, we need to let context inform us about what age the term "child" is meant to convey in this verse. First, let's look at every use of the word in Proverbs.
Pro 1:4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
Pro 7:7-8 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
Pro 20:11 Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Pro 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Pro 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
None of the uses of the word נַעַר naʻar H5288 in the book of Proverbs positively indicate infancy. They're all either neutral or point to an age that is older than infancy. The word is rendered as "young man" twice and "child" in every other instance. If our interlocutors want to assert that infancy is in view, the logical conclusion is that newborn infants should be beaten with a rod. I'm sure our interlocutors view this as only appropriate for children who have matured in body and mind. We can further demonstrate that infancy is not in view in Proverbs 22:15 by looking at all the passages in the book that talk about parental discipline because that's what Proverbs 22:15 is speaking about.
Pro 13:1, 24 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Pro 19:13, 18, 26-27 A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach. Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.
Pro 23:13-15, 19-24 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine. Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and guide thine heart in the way. Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old. Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.
Pro 29:15, 17, 19 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul. A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer.
Read through these passages and ask yourself if they're descriptive of a newborn infant or a child who's more mature. These are clearly children who are more mature. Not only does the word נַעַר naʻar H5288 not indicate infancy in the book of Proverbs, but the passages that deal with parental correction also don't indicate that the children being corrected are infants. Foolishness is indeed bound in the hearts of children. Correction is of course the remedy. However, it's clear in Proverbs that this stubborn and foolish streak of rebellion is connected with an age older than infancy. The age range in question is almost certainly adolescence to young adulthood. To insist this is speaking of correcting newborn children has some very concerning implications regarding parental discipline. Proverbs 22:15 doesn't come remotely close to proving any distinctive of original sin.
Prooftext #13: Genesis 5:3
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Explanation:
Some of our interlocutors argue for inherited guilt from this verse by appealing to Seth being "in Adam's likeness" and "after Adam's image". Therefore, since Adam was guilty of sin, that guilt is passed on to Seth by virtue of being in Adam's likeness and image. This argument is filled with problems.
First, the meaning of the words "likeness" and "image" does not inherently include guilt being passed down. Children naturally resemble and appear like their parents. That's what it means for someone to be after the likeness of another. If someone paints a portrait of you, they've created a painting that's an image of you and depicts your likeness. This doesn't mean your painting now possesses all the attributes that belong to you. It just means the painting resembles and appears like you.
Second, this argument leans on Traducianism being true in order for it to be a valid argument. The immaterial soul of humans doesn't originate in the bodies of our human parents though. They aren't technically in the likeness or image of our parents. At the end of the day, it's our immaterial souls that we're really debating about. It's our spiritual condition from conception. We all agree our physical bodies are corrupted and mortal. Therefore, a parent physically begetting a child in their image doesn't touch on the point of contention unless our interlocutor wants to argue that every part of a human being is physical as opposed to humans having a substance dualism.
Third, if being after the "likeness" or "image" of someone/something that is sinful means you yourself are inherently sinful and guilty, there would be Christological issues.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
This interpretation of "likeness" and "image" would imply that Jesus being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh means that Jesus was sent by the Father as someone who is sinful and guilty. Genesis 5:3 simply shows that humans reproduce after our own kind. Adam's son resembled him just like children today resemble their biological parents. This doesn't mean children are guilty of the sins their parents have committed.
Prooftexts #14-17: Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
Explanation:
We'll be dealing with these four verses together because they're all making the same statement. Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 are all retelling/rephrasing Exodus 20:5. These four verses are used to argue in favor of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt because we see mention that the iniquity of fathers is visited upon their children. Our interlocutors interpret this as inherited guilt and that since guilt is inherited/imputed from father to child it's therefore an example and/or precedent that humans also have the inherited/imputed guilt of Adam's original sin. There are multiple problems with this interpretation. We have multiple points to make in response to give a thorough explanation of these verses.
Point 1: Inherited/imputed Adamic guilt has two aspects to it. The first aspect is that it's unconditional. All humans descending from Adam receive it unconditionally from birth. The second aspect is that the passing on of this guilt is perpetual in duration. The guilt extends to all generations until the end of the eschaton. The problem arises when we try to connect this idea to the verses above. The verses above say the opposite of what is entailed with inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. We're told that the iniquity of the fathers vising the children is conditional rather than unconditional. Exodus 20:5 says this is a condition "of them that hate me". We're also told that this is limited in duration. Exodus 20:5 also says that this visitation is "unto the third and fourth generation". Neither of these facts regarding the nature of what's being discussed is compatible with the distinctions of original sin. We're told the exact opposite of what would need to be said in order for inherited/imputed Adamic guilt to have ground to stand on. On these grounds alone these verses are dismissable as prooftexts because they cannot be referring to Adamic guilt.
Point 2: To get a better idea of what these verses mean, let's look at the context of Numbers 14:18 and see its practical application.
Num 14:22-24, 26-33 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it: But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me. Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
After some of the Israelites fail to hearken to God's voice, provoke Him, and don't believe the report about the promised land, God promises that they won't enter. Instead, that generation's carcasses will fall and be wasted in the wilderness. However, that generation's young children wouldn't be subjected to this and they would enter. This displays a distinction between guilt and consequences for us. In this situation, God doesn't hold the younger Israelites guilty of provoking God and not hearkening to his voice. The future children of the older generation who would wander the wilderness weren't guilty of the sins of their parents. However, they would suffer the consequences of the choices and sins their parents made. Namely, to be born in the wilderness and to wander therein for forty years. Our iniquity affect, harm, and visit others; not in the sense that others are guilty of our iniquity, but rather in the sense that others suffer consequences as a result of our iniquity. Each generation being treated differently by God indicates that inherited/imputed guilt is not in view.
Point 3: Regarding physical, locational, and environmental judgments, our interlocutors sometimes conflate them with the spiritual condition of our immaterial souls and the fate of our souls upon death. This is a category error. Scripture testifies in passages like Galatians 6:5, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 22:12, Revelation 20:12-13, Matthew 12:36-37, Mark 16:27, Romans 14:11-12, Romans 2:5-6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:8, and John 5:28-29 that the eschatological blessings, damnation, and judgment of humans are dependant on what each person has or hasn't done themselves. It's faulty to conflate being negatively affected by the sins of another with being guilty of that sin yourself. Children being in environments created by the sins of their parents doesn't in and of itself reflect on the spiritual condition of the aforementioned children.
Point 4: During exilic periods, the Israelites sometimes fell into a false belief of inherited/imputed guilt. They were in an environment brought about by the sins of others. They reasoned that they must therefore be guilty of the sins of their fathers. The sins of their fathers had indeed visited them. They had long-reaching effects and ramifications that hurt future generations. But this was mistaken for inherited guilt. These Israelites are rebuked and corrected for this false belief in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18.
Point 5: To drill these concepts home let's use a modern-day example. Let's imagine that there’s a wealthy man who has a successful job and career. His family lives in a very nice house and his children attend a prestigious private school. But the man begins gambling and drinking. Due to his fall into these vices, he eventually loses his job and most of his money. He can no longer afford the mortgage on the nice house his family lives in or the private school for his children. The house gets foreclosed. He loses his reputation. The family is forced to leave the nice city they were in and move to a poorer area with cheaper housing. The children are forced to begin attending school in a district that doesn’t perform well academically and crime is high. The children have suffered many consequences from their father’s sins and are likely to suffer from various vices and temptations themselves as a result. But are the children guilty of gambling and alcoholism? Or is their father guilty? The father is the one who’s guilty of those sins. But his iniquity has visited the next generation in that it has exiled his children from the prosperity and opportunities they once had. It has exposed them to iniquity, vices, and sinful environments that they weren’t exposed to previously. This iniquity will pass to further generations and have adverse effects on them as well if the family continues on the path they’re on and doesn’t forsake their iniquity. But the guilt of the initial sins that led to this exile and situation belongs to the father. It can therefore be rightly said that iniquity can visit future generations without meaning that the guilt is passed on.
To summarize, these verses simply mean that in extreme situations, the sins of one generation can have disastrous consequences for multiple generations afterward; especially if God gets involved and places workers of iniquity under a physical, environmental, or locational judgment. The consequences of these verses are conditional and limited in duration. They are not adequate proof for a doctrine of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt from birth. Since the phrasing of these verses suggests diminishment over time, it seems like a description of the natural consequences of a single act of punishment rather than an active renewal for future generations: in the same way that the children of a man who is thrown into prison and deprived of his possessions will suffer. Hence, the punishment God inflicts on the sinful is so severe that its effects continue to handicap their descendants without any necessary implication that these descendants themselves inherit their ancestor’s guilt.
Prooftexts #18-21: Leviticus 26:39, Isaiah 65:6-7, Jeremiah 32:18, Lamentations 5:7
Lev 26:39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.
Isa 65:6-7 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
Jer 32:18 Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,
Lam 5:7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
Explanation:
These verses paraphrase and allude to verses we've covered previously: Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9. To quickly summarize, those verses simply mean that in extreme situations, the sins of one generation can have disastrous consequences for multiple generations afterward; especially if God gets involved and places workers of iniquity under a physical, environmental, or locational judgment. The consequences of these verses are conditional and limited in duration. They are not adequate proof for a doctrine of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt from birth.
None of the prooftexts #22-25 mention Adam or a perpetually inherited/imputed guilt for all generations. We believe these verses should be primarily interpreted through the framework of the four previously mentioned verses.
The context of Leviticus 26 is about the Israelites being blessed for obedience and cursed for disobedience. These blessings and curses are physical, environmental, and locational, and can have long-lasting generational impacts.
The context of Isaiah is about times of revival and times of rebellion. Judah was threatened with destruction by Assyria and Egypt but was spared because of God’s mercy.
In Jeremiah, we actually see the disconfirmation of perpetually inherited/imputed guilt in the chapter before 32.
Jer 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
In Lamentation, there is an exilic theme. The context fits our interpretation of Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9.
Lam 5:1-6 & 8 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us. Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.
The point is that the former generation had passed away without experiencing all the consequences brought about by their sins. The implication and meaning are that personal sins can have long-lasting generational impacts. We don't see an adequate display of the distinctions belonging to original sin in these four verses.
Prooftext #22: Galatians 3:22
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Explanation:
Some advocates of original sin interpret "all under sin" in this verse to mean that "all are guilty of sin from conception". We don't find this interpretation warranted. To be "under sin" means to be under the authority of sin and subordinate to sin. In the same sense "under the law of the land" would mean that one is under the authority and subordinate to the law of the land. The surrounding three verses in Galatians will help us understand Paul's point.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:23-24 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Let's also look at a similar statement Paul made in Romans.
Rom 3:19-22 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
According to Paul, all are under the law. But of course, being under the law doesn't in and of itself make someone guilty of sin. Transgression is what makes someone guilty. We also know that through being under the law, the whole world becomes guilty through transgressing the law. All are under sin because all are under the law which brings knowledge of sin and guilt upon transgression. "All under sin" according to Paul doesn't mean that all mankind is guilty of a singular Adamic sin from conception. It's connected to the law and transgressions thereof.
Prooftexts #23-24: 1 Corinthians 7:14, Hebrews 7:9-10
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Heb 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Explanation:
Some advocates of original sin look to these verses as examples of a principle called federal headship. We've covered the issue of federal headship in its own article here. To summarize the points of federal headship as it concerns Adamic guilt:
1. Federal headship is a covenantal way in which God deals with the human race.
2. This way of dealing with the human race is pleasing to God.
3. Adam is the legal representative for all future humans who are in/from him.
4. Adam being the legal representative entails unilateral and unconditional imputation of his guilt to all future humans.
5. As a result, all humans are under spiritual condemnation from conception. We are legally guilty in God's sight from the beginning of our existence.
The problem is that neither passage connects this representation in any way to Adam. 1 Corinthians 7 is just talking about marriage principles and the positive effects of having a believer in the household. Paul makes no Adamic connection here. There's no contextual reason to make such an inference.
The context of Hebrews 7 is about an argument that the Levitical priesthood was inferior to and is superseded by the Melchisedecian priesthood. The point is that Levi's ancestor Abraham, as great as he was, still paid tithes to Melchisedec which conveys subservience. And Levi, being Abraham's descendant, was also in a subservient role. The wording of "And as I may so say" conveys that the following statement is typological due to the qualifying and limiting phrase at the beginning of verse nine. The point of Hebrews 7 is Christ's superiority over the Levitical priesthood. The aim is not to point out some unconditional and unilateral Adamic representation. Again, there is no contextual reason to make such an inference.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
In fact, this very same chapter points out that intercession and representation by Christ are conditioned and appropriated by coming unto God by him. So we see representation in this very passage that is not unconditional and unilateral which is what federal headship entails.
If our interlocutors insist upon a concept of unconditional and unilateral representation via federal headship in Adam, they should go to passages that at least mention Adam in some capacity.
Prooftext #25: 1 Corinthians 15:56
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
Explanation:
Some advocates of original sin utilize this verse to essentially argue that even infants die so they're therefore guilty of sin. And this sin that we're all guilty of is Adam's. This argument rests on the underlying assumption that physical mortality necessarily conveys guilt. We covered that topic extensively in our article here. Therefore, we won't be going through that here.
We agree that sin initiated and brought death into the world. However, the second half of this verse actually seems to disconfirm the idea that all mankind is guilty of Adam's sin. If it were true that all mankind is guilty of Adam's sin from conception and therefore under condemnation, wrath, mortal, spiritually dead, etc. why would Paul point out that the law is where sin gets its strength? If this premise of inherited Adamic guilt is true, why would sin need the law to have strength when all mankind is already mortal, condemned, spiritually dead, and under wrath prior to transgressing said law? It would seem that sin wouldn't need the law to have strength if God decided that all mankind would be conceived in a state of guilt, condemnation, and wrath due to being guilty of Adam's singular first sin. So what's the significance of Paul's statement that "the strength of sin is the law"? It's quite simple when we look at the totality of Paul's thoughts. It's because the law brings knowledge of sin and makes the whole world guilty through personal transgression of the law.
Rom 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Paul says that it's by the law that all the world may become guilty before God. This is contrary to the notion that all the world is guilty before God because we're all guilty of Adam's sin. Paul also details how a type of "death" comes about through personal sin in Romans 7.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article for now. You can expect there to be more content added in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment