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.
Comments
Post a Comment