"Original Sin" And Eternal Punishment

Home \| Foundation Truths \| Original Sin & Eternal Punishment \| C L Parker \| Bill Turner \| Bibliography \| Contact
< > The Errors of Theories A and B The first two theories have in common the imputation to God of injustice and folly: injustice, because they attribute to Him wrath against man, either for what they have not themselves done or for what by their nature they are bound to do: folly, because it is stupid to make something which is only capable of a certain course of conduct, and then blame it for pursuing that course! If men by their nature are obliged to sin then God is wicked so to create them, foolish to be angry when they do sin, and unjust to blame them for so doing. Repentance Impossible Further, repentance is impossible for those born in sin, for if any man really is incapable of avoiding sin, it is impossible for him to repent of it when he has committed it. He cannot possibly be ashamed of doing what he is forced by his nature to do. — end of page 30 — He might regret that he had been given so bad a nature; but for this he would of course blame the One who had made him so inefficiently. The scorpion could not possibly be ashamed of its sting: though it might envy the butterfly its harmless beauty! Guilt Eliminated Actually the statement that men are born in sin does away with all possibility of a feeling of guilt for sinning, and of being brought to repentance. It is not repentance that such a man needs but a better birth! As an historical fact this attitude towards sin is enshrined in the aphorism humanum est errare, or "it is only human to sin", which is always quoted as an excuse for the evil that men do. Press this teaching and you soon arrive at the attitude, that it is really God's fault that men sin, and that you can't expect to be too good in this life. It is often remarked that there is no conviction of sin, even amongst Christians, nowadays. This is the inevitable and bitter fruit of this deadly doctrine. If you tell a man often enough that he is born to sin you can't expect him to fall down before God in contrition and shame! The immediate answer of a man who is told that he was born in sin is that he has had a raw deal, and has a legitimate ground of complaint against those who did such an evil thing, whether it be God or his parents. It would really be true that it would have been better never to have been born at all, than having been born to find that one had no chance of going right! As a matter of experience even the New Birth, perfect though it is, is not sufficient by itself to keep a man from sinning, for it is not the soul which is born again but the spirit. The soul is only "adopted",44 and needs by constant surrender to the spirit to learn a new way of life in a new home.45 Nothing that God is able to do can take away from a man the freedom of will which is his birthright, nor put him into a condition in which he cannot sin. It is not inability to sin which God gives us by a sovereign act of His own, but the ability to refuse of our own will to sin, in the light of the truth He has shown us through our spirit. The Kingdom of God will not be a society of those who cannot sin, but of those who will not sin. If God could do anything which would compel men never to sin He would do it for all, for all are — end of page 31 — objects of His love, and He is not willing that any should perish. God's power over the soul is limited to the persuasions of Love and Reason and the beginning of His opportunity is that change in the will of man, called Repentance. So these two theories offend against both of our cardinal doctrines—The Love of God, and The Freedom of Man. They paint a God of unreasonable anger and foolish reasoning; and a man free only to desire and do evil: so that he must regard himself at worst as an unlucky victim of circumstances, a patient needing a doctor, not a sinner needing forgiveness. This false Christian Doctrine kisses the worst of Modern Psychology in an unholy alliance, explaining away true guilt, and taking from man the full responsibility for his actions. It provides a perfect excuse for everyone who gives way to his unfortunate nature! Indeed in its final analysis it does away altogether with the concept of sin, which is that of a free will breaking law deliberately, and replaces it by the concept of the necessary and inevitable outworking of a faulty nature; which is the doctrine of the Materialist and the Unbeliever, the Hindu and the Buddhist, the Evolutionist and Psychiatrist! As a matter of fact those who hold such theories are guilty of hypocrisy, even if it be partly unconscious and caused by lack of reflection, like those who, through unwillingness to believe in Divine Healing, declare that sickness is a blessing from God, and then hasten to the Doctor to get rid of the blessing! If these theories were true, every parent who caught its child lying or stealing would explain to it that it mustn't worry, because God has made it that way, and that because it is depraved it couldn't help doing so! So also the Judge would not blame the criminal for giving way to his unfortunate propensities for crime, but would explain to him that as a matter of fact we were all in the same boat, and only giving expression to our fallen nature, which God has created. This is the exact position of many anti-Christian Psychologists and they walk hand in hand with St. Augustine and his theories. But in actual practice does the Christian preacher of Original Sin excuse either his own children or the criminal on the ground that it was impossible for them to avoid sin — end of page 32 — owing to their God-given nature? Is not our practice the very opposite of our theory? We treat them as if they ought to be ashamed for having behaved so badly, when there was no need to do so. It is only in theological controversy that we blame Adam for what our neighbours have done. In ordinary life we blame them! < >
The Disastrous Effects Of The Doctrine Of Original Sin \| By His Stripes We Are Healed \| The Book Of Revelation \| The Second Coming Of Christ \| The Baptism And Gifts Of The Holy Spirit \| The Comforter Is Come

The Errors of Theories A and B

The first two theories have in common the imputation to God of injustice and folly: injustice, because they attribute to Him wrath against man, either for what they have not themselves done or for what by their nature they are bound to do: folly, because it is stupid to make something which is only capable of a certain course of conduct, and then blame it for pursuing that course!

If men by their nature are obliged to sin then God is wicked so to create them, foolish to be angry when they do sin, and unjust to blame them for so doing.

Repentance Impossible

Further, repentance is impossible for those born in sin, for if any man really is incapable of avoiding sin, it is impossible for him to repent of it when he has committed it. He cannot possibly be ashamed of doing what he is forced by his nature to do.

— end of page 30 —

He might regret that he had been given so bad a nature; but for this he would of course blame the One who had made him so inefficiently. The scorpion could not possibly be ashamed of its sting: though it might envy the butterfly its harmless beauty!

Guilt Eliminated

Actually the statement that men are born in sin does away with all possibility of a feeling of guilt for sinning, and of being brought to repentance. It is not repentance that such a man needs but a better birth! As an historical fact this attitude towards sin is enshrined in the aphorism humanum est errare, or "it is only human to sin", which is always quoted as an excuse for the evil that men do. Press this teaching and you soon arrive at the attitude, that it is really God's fault that men sin, and that you can't expect to be too good in this life. It is often remarked that there is no conviction of sin, even amongst Christians, nowadays. This is the inevitable and bitter fruit of this deadly doctrine. If you tell a man often enough that he is born to sin you can't expect him to fall down before God in contrition and shame! The immediate answer of a man who is told that he was born in sin is that he has had a raw deal, and has a legitimate ground of complaint against those who did such an evil thing, whether it be God or his parents. It would really be true that it would have been better never to have been born at all, than having been born to find that one had no chance of going right!

As a matter of experience even the New Birth, perfect though it is, is not sufficient by itself to keep a man from sinning, for it is not the soul which is born again but the spirit. The soul is only "adopted",44 and needs by constant surrender to the spirit to learn a new way of life in a new home.45 Nothing that God is able to do can take away from a man the freedom of will which is his birthright, nor put him into a condition in which he cannot sin. It is not inability to sin which God gives us by a sovereign act of His own, but the ability to refuse of our own will to sin, in the light of the truth He has shown us through our spirit. The Kingdom of God will not be a society of those who cannot sin, but of those who will not sin. If God could do anything which would compel men never to sin He would do it for all, for all are

— end of page 31 —

objects of His love, and He is not willing that any should perish. God's power over the soul is limited to the persuasions of Love and Reason and the beginning of His opportunity is that change in the will of man, called Repentance.

So these two theories offend against both of our cardinal doctrines—The Love of God, and The Freedom of Man. They paint a God of unreasonable anger and foolish reasoning; and a man free only to desire and do evil: so that he must regard himself at worst as an unlucky victim of circumstances, a patient needing a doctor, not a sinner needing forgiveness. This false Christian Doctrine kisses the worst of Modern Psychology in an unholy alliance, explaining away true guilt, and taking from man the full responsibility for his actions. It provides a perfect excuse for everyone who gives way to his unfortunate nature!

Indeed in its final analysis it does away altogether with the concept of sin, which is that of a free will breaking law deliberately, and replaces it by the concept of the necessary and inevitable outworking of a faulty nature; which is the doctrine of the Materialist and the Unbeliever, the Hindu and the Buddhist, the Evolutionist and Psychiatrist!

As a matter of fact those who hold such theories are guilty of hypocrisy, even if it be partly unconscious and caused by lack of reflection, like those who, through unwillingness to believe in Divine Healing, declare that sickness is a blessing from God, and then hasten to the Doctor to get rid of the blessing!

If these theories were true, every parent who caught its child lying or stealing would explain to it that it mustn't worry, because God has made it that way, and that because it is depraved it couldn't help doing so! So also the Judge would not blame the criminal for giving way to his unfortunate propensities for crime, but would explain to him that as a matter of fact we were all in the same boat, and only giving expression to our fallen nature, which God has created. This is the exact position of many anti-Christian Psychologists and they walk hand in hand with St. Augustine and his theories.

But in actual practice does the Christian preacher of Original Sin excuse either his own children or the criminal on the ground that it was impossible for them to avoid sin

— end of page 32 —

owing to their God-given nature? Is not our practice the very opposite of our theory? We treat them as if they ought to be ashamed for having behaved so badly, when there was no need to do so. It is only in theological controversy that we blame Adam for what our neighbours have done. In ordinary life we blame them!

< >