ORIGINAL SIN?

ORIGINAL SIN?

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...”  Romans 5: 12

As we look again at the subject of sin and its consequence, it takes no time to realise that we have opened up another “can of worms”. How amazing, that those who struggle with so many doctrines of the Christian faith seem to hone in those doctrines which carry the burden of “not being in the Bible”, or so it is claimed!

Original sin, according to most Christian theological doctrine, is humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. This condition has been characterized in many ways: ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency in all men and women, with a tendency toward sin, yet without collective guilt.

It is also sometimes referred to as man’s “sin nature”, something so drastic as to indicate man’s total depravity, or automatic guilt, in which all humans stand condemned through their collective guilt.

It is true, ‘Original sin’ is not a phrase that appears in either the Old Testament or the New, but, dear reader, as we have seen recently in our previous editions, a ‘name’, often ascribed by men, does not hinder the truth of the word of God. ‘Original sin’ suffers this same accusation of being a man made invention and those who reject the concept generally accuse Paul of inventing the doctrine out of his own warped mind!

The attacks on Paul have been unrelenting, even to this day, and those who claim that the early Christian Church was hijacked by Paul and his followers, accuse Paul of starting a new form of religion that Christ never intended, and therefore, this doctrine of Original Sin has no bearing on the life of any Christian.

Paul, as it turns out ironically, never used the term “Original Sin” and it is not necessary for us to use the phrase either, but beloved we must be very careful what we do with the passage of Rom 5: 12. If Paul invented this teaching, and not the Holy Spirit, as is contended, then one must ask, “What was the point of Jesus’ sacrifice upon that bloodied cross? If, in that first garden, there was no consequential sin with Adam’s rebellion, then why the need for Christ’s atonement?

Alfred Edersheim, a noted Jewish convert from the 19th Century, observed:

“The statement that as in Adam all (humans) spiritually died, so in Messiah all should be made alive, finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings. As to the mode of salvation, their doctrine may be broadly summed up under the designation of works (equals) righteousness.

It was neither at the feet of Gamaliel, nor yet from Jewish Hellenism, that Saul of Tarsus learned the doctrine of ‘original sin’. Whilst what may be called the starting point of Christian theology, that is; that the reign of physical death may indeed traced (back) to the sin of our first parents, the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin through the fall of Adam, and of the consequent entire and helpless corruption of our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism.                                                                       “The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah’.  Alfred Edersheim.  (1825-1889).

So...the starting point of our Christian faith hangs on the fact that Paul either heard from the Holy Spirit (the very point Edersheim makes) or he invented a sad doctrine that allows some to accuse him of blasphemy!

A somewhat controversial (and now defrocked) AOG preacher took the latter view: “Needless to say I do not hold to this thinking in spite of the obvious dangers from my denominational brethren. Man, however, did not call me to preach, and it is not man that   I shall ultimately answer to for the Gospel I preach; “We hold this thinking to be a Gnostic idea and a severe error, and will endeavour to prove such both by the Scriptures and by reason....this ghastly doctrine was foisted on a gullible and ignorant church, brought into being through the teaching of Augustine of Hippo....making it church doctrine and thus wedding a heathen concept to Christian doctrine....I for one cannot accuse God of this doctrine and I hold this to be akin to blasphemy.” Ronald Stringfellow.  

                                                                                                       (From a FidoNet discussion (Nov 1996 to Jan 1997)

How strange, that anyone trained in the traditions of Christian theology could bring himself to eventually deny 45% of the New Testament!

Augustine may well have been the first person to use the term ‘Original Sin’, but to accuse him of inventing this doctrine is to deny Paul his place of Apostle/Teacher in Christian history and to also accuse the Apostle Peter of a compliant deception, meaning, though he publicly endorsed Paul, he secretly had his doubts. Did not Peter address the problem of Paul in the Church in Second Peter 3: 15- 17?

“Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all of his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Peter was no hypocrite! He looked upon Paul as “our beloved brother, one who received wisdom from our Lord.” Take heed then those who would accuse Paul! It may not be seen as blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, but it must run a close second. Peter warns that to wrestle with Paul’s teaching was to identify oneself as ‘unstable and unlearned’ and to place oneself in immanent danger of destruction.

Peter conceded that some of Paul’s teaching was indeed new and sometimes hard to understand, but beloved, Peter had no hesitation in commending all of Paul’s epistles to the Church at large - including the entire Book of Romans!

The wide variations of interpretations of Rom. 5:12 cannot deny or diminish the truth of Paul’s revelation, that Adam’s sin carried immense consequences. Paul, for the first time in human history, saw that “... by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...” 

    

Matthew Henry, in his great commentary writes:  “The apostle here describes the fountain and foundation of justification, laid in the death of the Lord Jesus. The streams are very sweet, but, if you run them up to the spring-head, you will find it to be Christ’s dying for us; it is in the precious stream of Christ’s blood that all these privileges come flowing to us: and therefore he enlarges upon this instance of the love of God which is shed abroad. Three things he takes notice of for the explication and illustration of this doctrine:—1. The persons he died for, v. 6-8. 2. The precious fruits of his death, v. 9-11. The parallel he runs between the communication of sin and death by the first Adam and of righteousness and life by the second Adam, v. 12, to the end.  The character we were under when Christ died for us. 1. We were without strength v.6, in a sad condition; and, which is worse, altogether unable to help ourselves out of that condition - lost, and no visible way open for our recovery - our condition deplorable, and in a manner desperate; and, therefore our salvation is here said to come in due time. God’s time to help and save is when those that are to be saved are without strength, that his own power and grace may be the more magnified, Deut. 32:36.

It is the manner of God to help at a dead lift, (2). He died for the ungodly; not only helpless creatures, and therefore likely to perish, but guilty sinful creatures, and therefore deserving to perish; not only mean and worthless, but vile and obnoxious, unworthy of such favour with the holy God.”

Matthew Henry sought not to look for Original Sin here, but rather concentrated on the redeeming grace of our loving God. Henry was a Puritan and after the habit of classical Calvinism (not to be confused with neo-Calvinism) but he never left man anything in which to glory. He always gave God 100% of the glory. We would do well to follow suit.                                                                                                                              Rod Rowland.