It is no surprise that in a 2002 survey almost three-quarters of Americans (seventy-four percent) rejected the teaching of original sin.
After all, Americans want to feel good about themselves. Nathaniel Brandon, whom many consider the father of the self-esteem movement, said, “The idea of Original Sin…is anti-self-esteem by its very nature. The very notion of guilt without volition or responsibility is an assault on reason as well as on morality.” Also, many view this as an idea from the so-called “Dark Ages”; philosopher and historian Ernst Cassirer noted, “The concept of original sin is the most common opponent against which the different trends of the philosophy of Enlightenment join forces.” But, sadly, the survey also revealed that only fifty-two percent of evangelicals held to the doctrine of original sin.
The denial or misstatement of any Christian doctrine not only distorts our understanding of reality, but has grave implications for other Christian doctrines, and this certainly is true for the doctrine of original sin. For example, if there were no “first Adam” who actually was a man who sinned, the parallel to Jesus being the “last Adam” is lost. Also, if nothing happened to human nature when Adam sinned, then it becomes theologically inexplicable why Scripture constantly portrays all of humankind as evil and thus deserving punishment. On the contrary, a robust view of human sinfulness justifies God’s judgment, demonstrates God’s patience, and magnifies the significance of Christ’s sacrifice.
Although Christians define original sin differently, historically for Protestants original sin has two commonly held components: humankind is guilty for the sin of their first parents and humankind inherited a corrupted nature, since they are sexual reproductions of their first parents.
You can read the rest of the article I wrote online at the Christian Research Journal.
I’m an evangelical that doesn’t believe in original sin. Its unbiblical, doesn’t jibe super well with evolution, and frankly speaks to the historic church’s deep seated psychological issues surrounding sex. I don’t care to argue, but what bothers me here is the suggestion that I reject the doctrine because it hurts my self-esteem. I still believe I am sinful and in need of grace, but you have virtually no factual or biblical support for your claim… and you don’t know me or most other evangelicals well enough to make such a judgmental comment.
Every single claim in the third paragraph is untenable. “Since there’s no historic first Adam there can’t be a Second Adam in Christ?” Really? Utilizing the Adam and Eve story mythologically in no way undermines Paul’s analogous claim in Romans… operative word being ANALOGY. Expand your thinking. Paul was not a modernist writing in literalistic terms so don’t read him that way.
Dear Daniel,
Were you able to take time to read the full article? I found that the actual article expounds on the claims that are made in the brief intro above and will address your assertion that Dr. Jones has “virtually no factual or biblical support for [his] claim,” by providing just such support.
The doctrine of original sin explains clearly why humans are naturally so evil. What is the evangelical explanation for humanity’s inherent sinfulness if there is no original sin? How do secular philosopher’s explain it? I am just curious as I have never heard an answer to these questions.
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience.” Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners–for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.
Humans are evil because they choose to act evil. Maybe many Americans want to feel good for themselves but I believe in most of the cases it involves just a will. I reject the doctrine of Original Sin because simply and rationally speaking I haven’t been able to do anything evil (or even good) before I was born. And saying I am sinful because first men were is as logical as saying I am sinful because I have the same blood type as Hitler had. People are responsible for living their lives according to certain values and so they are also responsible for choosing the right values to live by. And I sincerely cannot allow to take guilt for things I have not done. That is why Original Sin is anti self-esteem. It rejects my freedom of choice to be good, therfore it rejects the basic human ability to choose and so it is also anti-human.