Original Sin

This is a question I received with my response.

QUESTION-

I would like to know what your position is on the doctrine of original sin and how we are guilty of Adam's sin. I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism. So it would be impossible to fight against it, unless some force outside of us frees us from this curse. I do not see that we are guilty of sin until the moment we sin, but we are bound to sin as having the virus of sin, at some point it will manifest. So I don't see that we are guilty of birth, but heirs of a nature with the incubated virus. but that does not make us sinners until the moment we actually commit sin, only at that moment are we guilty and responsible for what we practice. I see that unless someone dies as a newborn, they will sin. I would like to know your thoughts on this.

RESPONSE-

Your question is a good one! The doctrine of Original Sin is an important doctrine in the history of the Christian faith. However, there is substantial variety in the understanding of the doctrine by the major Christian denominations, and in fact, the doctrine is not even universally held. The underlying assumption that seems to be present in your question and analogy of virus transmission, is the understanding of imputed sin nature. As you state in your question, "I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism."  This understanding is akin (although not identical) to the view historically held by many in Western Christianity whereby we inherit the sin nature from Adam's commission of the first sin in the Garden as well as Adam's guilt for his sin. In this view, most prominently proposed by Augustine, humanity cannot not sin, it is inevitable. This is similar to your view I think, although you disavow the personal guilt aspect. Additionally, Augustine would have been favorable toward your virus analogy as he felt that original sin was passed along biologically. However, in Eastern Christianity, a "softer" view prevails whereas the doctrine is seen more along the lines of our environment that has been tainted. Adam and Eve sinned, thereby tainting our environment, and to some degree our nature in that now we experience death, creating a context that we inherit in which we are now more likely to commit personal sin. In Eastern Orthodoxy, one would say that we all inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the personal guilt. 

It is important to note that this doctrine is not typically considered a core or essential doctrine, meaning it is not required to believe in the doctrine or a particular version of the doctrine, to be considered a Christian. This is an in-house debate that is important, but not essential to the core gospel. What is core to the gospel is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "... there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). But the idea of the human race inheriting the original sin and guilt of Adam in some fashion is not an essential.

Dr. William Lane Craig has written and spoken fairly extensively on this topic. I particularly commend his "Defender Series"/Doctrine of Man on the topic to you and one of his answers to a previous "Question of the Week" - links to both are below. May God bless you richly Luis and thank you for reaching out!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s10
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/original-sin/

Can a Christian Lose Salvation?

This is a very important question and has been hotly debated within Christianity for centuries. Perhaps you know a bit about the ongoing debate and positions that have been defined in it, but to make sure we have at least a basic context let's consider a very brief summary.

Typically the answer to this question has fallen into two opposing camps. On one side is the Calvinist or Reformed position and on the other side is the Arminian position. The Calvinist position proposes an answer of "no", a true Christian cannot lose his or her salvation whereas the Arminian position proposes a "yes" answer to the question. Both of these positions would be considered within the pale of orthodoxy. However, there are people in each of these groups who would be considered of the more "radical" adherents, that would say the opposing position is heresy. However, throughout the history of the church either of these positions, as long as they were not accompanied by some other recognized heretical doctrine, was considered acceptable.

The Calvinist position holds that God converts the soul, causes the rebirth and transforms the nature, writing the law on the heart of the believer, and as such, the believer cannot "unconvert" him or herself. The believer now has a new nature and will act according to that new nature just as an unbeliever can only act according to his or her sinful, corrupt nature. Therefore, as a new creation, the believer will be faithful unto the end. But what about the passages of scripture that warn believers not to fall away, that seem to indicate a true believer can turn away from the faith? Heb 3 and Heb 6:4-12 are perhaps the classic passages to which most turn to make the claim that true believers can fall away. There are others as well but these seem to be the most significant. The Calvinist proponent tries to make the case these passages are really addressing the "pseudo-believer" and not a truly born again person. Additionally, some Calvinist would claim that, even if they are addressed to true believers, God uses these kinds of warnings to keep the true believer in the faith, as a means of sustaining or preserving grace. More about this later.

The Arminian position would say we must take the warnings at face value and if they appear to be issued to true believers, we should assume the audience is the true believer and therefore, true believers are authentically subject to falling away. Of course, this view is built upon the foundational view of libertarian free will that is key to the Arminian theology. And, conversely, the Calvinist view is built on their foundational view of total depravity and the bondage of the will. On the Arminian view, the will remains free to simply walk away from Christ, and thus conditions could occur that would result in a true believer walking away, committing apostasy. God works in the life of the believer to sustain and keep the believer but in the end, the believer has libertarian freedom and can use that freedom to turn away from God's grace.

But, something on which both Arminians and Calvinists agree, is that if a true believer were to ultimately and finally reject Christ there would be no hope for repentance per Hebrews 6:4-6. This would be the "point of no return".  Some ask if a true Christian can lose their salvation "due to repeated disobedience". There is scriptural evidence, specifically Heb 3, that indicates continued disobedience and rebellion, and "the deceitfulness of sin" can lead one to unbelief and a final rejection of Christ. But it is the final rejection of Christ that dooms one. It's not the disobedience or even denials like Peter's three denials, it's the unbelief. It is the rejection of Christ as our Savior that dooms us to the judgment of God because there is no other solution for our sin (Heb 10:26) and anything left to provide reconciliation to God! So both Arminians and Calvinists agree that to be saved, one must continue to believe in Christ unto the end. The difference is that Arminians believe a true believer can ultimately and finally turn away from Christ and fall into unbelief whereas the Calvinist believes that God will work to maintain the true believer in faith unto the end. On Calvinism, a true believer might turn away for a time but will ultimately return in faith.

As mentioned above, some Calvinists would claim that various warnings we see in scripture are indeed aimed at true believers. But, the warnings do not mean that a true Christian can ultimately turn away from Christ, rather they function as a means of God's grace to maintain the true Christian's faithfulness so they don't turn away. They function to help sustain saving faith. This actually assumes a Molinist understanding of God's middle knowledge. The idea here is that believers have the ability to turn away from Christ if it were not for God's sustaining activity. God knows exactly what each of us would do under any given circumstance so, in his providence, he arranges the lives of his elect in such a way that will sustain their faith. While the true believer *could* turn away, they are not being coerced against their wills or forced in any way to stay with Christ, God knows if circumstances are arranged in a given manner, they *will* not turn away from Christ. In other words, God's providence based on his omniscience, which includes middle knowledge as described, is the method he uses to sustain and preserve his elect in faith without violating their free agency.  This is the position I hold.  I am reformed in my theological position but adopt Molinism as the *way* God ensures his purposes are achieved without violating human freedom. And, using his middle knowledge, he sustains and preserves his elect in faith unto the end.

In summary, the key points on which most all agree are: 1) one must continue believing in Christ until the end. When Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who wronged him, he assumed Jesus might say as many as 7 times! That would be generous for sure. But Jesus said 70 times 7! In other words, there is no limit to forgiveness for those who come back to Christ in repentance and faith. And 2) the only way to lose one's salvation is to finally reject Christ, to simply turn away from him and never return. As long as you are trusting Christ, asking him for forgiveness for your sin and disobedience, you are by definition in faith.

Mere Men

It is good to be reminded that we are "but mere men" (Ps 9:20). Humility and a contrite dependency are key heart attitudes that are required to receive salvation from the Lord...or to receive His help as we walk with Him after salvation. This is what is meant by passages like Ps 51:17, Isa 57:15, Mat 6:14-15. Also we see this is part of the fruit of the Spirit Gal 5:22-26. On the other hand if we do not have these heart attitudes we cannot assume we are actually saved and thus indwelt by the Spirit - Rom 8:9-10, Gal 5:19-21.

What should we do if we examine ourselves and find that humility and a contrite dependency on God is not in our hearts? First know that if you realize your need it is a result of God's grace and that is good news! Then pray to God and ask for the change of heart that comes about only by the working of His Spirit (Jn 16:8 & 6:43-44) through humble trust in Christ.