Whatever Became Of Original Sin?

A recent survey, The State of Theology, revealed that 64 percent of American evangelicals believe “everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God,” and 53 percent believe “everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.” While these statements contradict Scripture’s teaching, the lessons of history, and common sense, they comport well with the philosophies of a therapeutic age.

In 1973, famed psychiatrist Karl Menninger asked, Whatever Became of Sin? Previous generations, informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic, held individuals responsible for unloving behavior, but Menninger warned that some schools of psychology provided ways to escape that responsibility by shifting blame to other factors. He believed this diminished the hope of a moral and just society. What Menninger criticized in the 1970s opened the door for the self-esteem movement in the 1980s and ’90s. Adults were advised to boost self-esteem in children through giving unwarranted praise and avoiding negative criticism.

By 2024, psychologist Jonathan Haidt concluded that this well-intentioned coddling produced fragile children who are overprotected in the physical world, underprotected in the online world, unprepared for the advent of the smartphone, and caught up in an epidemic of anxiety.

The upshot is that for half a century, therapeutic trends have discipled many evangelicals to diminish, or even deny, the concept of universal sin and moral guilt.

What Is Original Sin?

The term “original sin” doesn’t refer to the first sin, committed by Adam, but to the result of that first sin. The Bible asserts not only that we sin a lot but that we’re sinful by nature. Therefore, writes Richard Phillips, “We have an inborn tendency to commit sin.”

As Paul wrote, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). All people, both in Paul’s day and ours, have sinned in the past. When did we sin? When Adam sinned. In his first sin, Adam represented his descendants with devastating results.

Every human being except the virgin-born Son of God is imputed with Adam’s guilt, inherits Adam’s corrupt sin nature, and then confirms that imputed guilt by committing actual sins. In this fallen state of spiritual death, all people are unable and unwilling to do what’s truly good, unless God sovereignly regenerates them, making them “alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5). As R. C. Sproul said, “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we’re sinners.”

Therefore, we confess with the psalmist, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”’ (Ps. 51:5). We agree with Paul: “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). We concur with Jesus in his startling bluntness: “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19).

3 Reasons to Defend Original Sin

The man-humbling doctrine of original sin taught by Jesus and the apostles, developed by Augustine, recovered by the reformers, and captured in the major Protestant confessions is now locked out of many evangelical churches. But here are three reasons this difficult doctrine must be defended.

1. It checks theological drift.

In 1731, Jonathan Edwards’s first published sermon, “God Glorified in Man’s Dependence,” warned against theological schemes opposing our absolute dependence on God: “So much the more men exalt themselves, so much the less will they surely be disposed to exalt God.” This principle governed Edwards’s work, including his last treatise, published in 1758, “The Great Doctrine of Original Sin Defended.” Edwards’s last word warns us that rejecting the foundational doctrine of original sin inevitably leads to the collapse of the gospel. “The doctrine of salvation,” he wrote, “must be built upon” the doctrine of original sin.

Every human being except the virgin-born Son of God is imputed with Adam’s guilt, inherits Adam’s corrupt sin nature, and then confirms that imputed guilt by committing actual sins.

Careful students of mainline decline see that Edwards has been vindicated. The same hermeneutic used to eliminate the offensive doctrine of original sin easily erases the gospel’s exclusivity, revises Jesus’s definition of marriage, undermines penal substitutionary atonement, and denies the existence of hell. Hell seems like overkill for people who are “born innocent,” only “sin a little,” and are “good by nature.” Likewise, God’s grace seems less amazing. The more we convince ourselves of man’s inherent goodness, the less justification we see for eternal punishment. However, churches and denominations with a robust doctrine of original sin are more likely to retain other cardinal doctrines out of fashion with the world.

Don’t dismiss Edwards. His lamentable justification for the institution of slavery only bolsters his argument for original sin. We all have a limitless capacity to recognize sin in others while rationalizing it in ourselves.

2. It discourages political idolatry.

A generation after Edwards, John Witherspoon became the sixth president of Princeton. As the only clergy member to sign the Declaration of Independence, he affirmed the necessity of the doctrine of original sin. One of his more famous students at Princeton was James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” who famously argued that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

While it’s difficult to demonstrate that Madison held to original sin as taught by his mentor Witherspoon, Madison’s pessimistic view of human nature was certainly informed by it. Historian Robert Tracy McKenzie convincingly argues that regarding original sin, the Framers “were much closer to biblical truth than the majority of Americans today.” In our 250th year as a nation, it’s important to remember that our founders knew no one could be trusted with much power. For that reason, the Constitution separates powers and limits government with an elaborate system of checks and balances.

Evangelicals, of all people, should be wary of flattering and charismatic leaders who seek political power while promising to be their protector. History shows, in the words of Lord Acton, that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But the doctrine of original sin goes further, claiming people are corrupt long before they have power. Greater power merely provides the opportunity to express one’s corruption in more consequential ways. The Constitution is a gift of common grace to restrain the evil of fallen people.

Our own sinful nature inclines us away from our invisible God and tempts us to put unmerited “trust in princes” we can see (Ps. 146:3). But the doctrine of original sin should make us evangelicals more discerning citizens who don’t rely on a candidate to have “a good heart.” No candidate’s heart can be fully trusted because, like every person’s heart, it’s “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).

3. It aids in personal holiness.

In 1877, J. C. Ryle noted that original sin explains how “a man may break God’s law in heart and thought, when there is no overt or visible act of wickedness.” Without attention to this doctrine, we easily overestimate our goodness and ability to resist temptation. The pursuit of personal holiness requires a healthy self-mistrust.

Like politicians, even pastors shouldn’t be trusted without qualification. “Trust but verify” is good foreign policy, but it’s also good church policy. In the Old Testament, God limited human government by separating kingly and priestly powers. In the New Testament, he prescribes a limited church government led by a plurality of elders with good reputations who are accountable to the congregation.

Like many seasoned Christians, I’m a relatively good person. Relative to most of the people I hear about in the news, I come out alright. But compared to Jesus, my sinful nature is painfully evident. I can externally conform to God’s moral law and, in the eyes of man, be counted above reproach. Yet I soberly recall that “man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees not only what I do but why I do it.

Herman Bavinck quotes one philosopher as saying, “Our virtues are often no more than vices in disguise.” While Scripture commands us to love one another, it never commands us to trust one another. Trust must be earned and routinely verified.

While Scripture commands us to love one another, it never commands us trust one another. Trust must be earned and routinely verified.

Is there a point in our spiritual growth when deadly sins like pride, envy, greed, and lust no longer exert their pernicious influence? I can say from experience that it must be sometime after age 65. The daily struggle is real, and I have every reason to believe it’ll continue until my death or Christ’s return.

In 1973, Menninger was alarmed that Americans weren’t taking responsibility for what they did. A half century later, even evangelicals in America aren’t taking responsibility for who they are. Christ alone “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). He alone is worthy of my unqualified trust. He knows me better than I know myself, and nevertheless, he loves me. While the first Adam represented me in the garden, the last Adam represented me at the cross. When I was unable and unwilling to trust him on my own, God made me alive in Christ, gave me faith to believe, and declared me righteous.

That’s who I am. Fully known, deeply loved, totally pardoned, simul justus et peccator. At the same time righteous and a sinner.