Answering Donahue on Original Sin

In a recent post titled "Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin" (here) I responded to an e-mail that Pat Donahue, champion debater for the "Church of Christ," sent to me on that text and tried to prove that Romans chapter five does not teach the doctrine of original sin, that says all Adam's descendants were judged to have sinned in Adam and condemned for his transgression. I showed how his argumentation was false and that he was misinterpreting that chapter. Now he has sent the following on the same subject:

"On the “Born In Sin” issue consider Deut 32:5 “they have corrupted themselves … they are a perverse and crooked generation.” Notice they were "perverse and crooked,” but they weren’t born that way: 

• "corrupted" implies uncorrupted beforehand, right? 

• they corrupted themselves – Adam’s sin didn’t do it 

• this corruption occurred in their lifetime, not before or at birth 

 

Gen 6:12 confirms this point as it reads “God looked upon the earth and it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” See how they weren’t born corrupt, but instead “corrupted” themselves?

“Born In Sin” doesn’t make any sense anyway. If Adam was born with no depravity and we are his descendants, then we should expect to be born without depravity just like him. And “the fall” would not change that, because we don’t inherit the traits of our parents that develop after they were born. For example, if my Dad loses an arm in an accident, that doesn’t mean I will be born without an arm."

The error of Donahue in this argumentation is that he assumes that when the text he cites says that the Israelites "corrupted themselves" that it means that they were not corrupt before they corrupted themselves in the instance alluded to in the text. Every time the Israelites departed from the Lord they corrupted themselves. Does Donahue think that people cannot corrupt themselves more than once, that is, over and over again? "Corrupting" themselves is like "hardening" their hearts. This may be done over and over, more and more. More than once we are told that Pharaoh "hardened his heart." Did that imply that his heart was soft before? No, all it means is that each time Pharaoh went back on his word he hardened his heart once again. So Moses said to the Israelites after they had corrupted themselves in making a golden calf:

"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?" And,

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deut. 31: 27, 29 kjv)

Donahue's logic leads one to say that once a person has corrupted himself that he cannot corrupt himself again or become more corrupt, or "utterly corrupt." However, the above verses show that such reasoning is false. Jude, the Lord's brother, wrote:

"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves" (Jude 1: 10 kjv)

The words "they corrupt themselves" are from the singular Greek word phtheirontai which is a present indicative verb and denotes linear action, and so it means "they are corrupting themselves continually." 

Just because a person is said to corrupt himself by some sin does not imply that he was not born in corruption. Though believers are born a second time of divine "incorruptible seed" (I Peter 1: 23) yet they are born first of the corruptible seed of Adam. King David said that he had been "shapen in iniquity" in his mother's womb and was "conceived in sin." (Psa. 51: 5) Paul said that all are "by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. 2: 3), and "by nature" he means "by birth" as when Paul speaks of those who are "Jews by nature." (Gal 2: 15) When I debated Pat Donahue back around 1992 on the subject of original sin he said "by nature" meant what becomes nature by long practice, as in something becoming "second nature." However, that is not what Galatians 2: 15 means, obviously. 

He cited Greek scholar Thayer who said "phusis" (nature) may mean "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature." However, that was the third definition he gave of the word and is rather his interpretation of Ephesians 2:3 rather than a true definition of the word. Here are the four ways that Thayer says the word may be defined (emphasis mine):

a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: ὁ, ἡ, τό παρά φύσιν, that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Romans 1:26 (οἱ παρά φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδιτη χρώμενοι, Athen. 13, p. 605; ὁ παιδεραστής ... τήν παρά φύσιν ἡδονήν διώκει, Philo de spec. legg. i., § 7); as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: οἱ κατά φύσιν κλάδοι, the natural branches, i. e. branches by the operation of nature, Romans 11:21, 24 (Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with οἱ ἐγκεντρισθεντες παρά φύσιν, contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ἡ κατά φύσιν ἀγριέλαιος, ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: οἱ μή φύσει ὄντες θεοί, who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5), Galatians 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: ἡ φύσις (i. e. the native sense of propriety) διδάσκει τί, 1 Corinthians 11:14; φύσει ποιεῖν τά τοῦ ναμου, natura magistra, guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.

b. birth, physical origin: ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Galatians 2:15 (φύσει νεώτερος, Sophocles O. C. 1295; τῷ μέν φύσει πατρίς, τόν δέ νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποιηντο, Isocrates Evagr. 21; φύσει βάρβαροι ὄντες, νόμῳ δέ Ἕλληνες, Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Wis. 13:1); ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Romans 2:27.

c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).

d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: φύσις θηρίων (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνῃ (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 31, 10); θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως, (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Peter 1:4 (Ἀμενωφει ... θείας δοκουντι μετεσχηκεναι φύσεως κατά τέ σοφίαν καί πρόγνωσιν τῶν, ἐσομενων, Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).

I firmly believe that Thayer in definitions a, b, and d gives the true meaning of the word but in definition c he gives his personal interpretation and speaks as a theologian and not as a Greek scholar or lexicographer. But, even in definition c he acknowledges that other Greek scholars "lay more stress" in Ephesians 2: 3 "upon the constitution in which this habitual course of evil has its origin," that is, "at birth." So, when we say it is the nature of a lion to be carnivorous we mean that this is part of his constitution, what he is from the moment of his creation.

If we look at other places in the new testament where we have "by nature" we will see that it means the nature a person was born with. We have already mentioned where Paul spoke of those who are "Jews by nature." Paul speaks of Gentiles who are "by nature" "uncircumcised" (Rom. 2: 27), meaning men are born this way. Paul speaks of an "olive tree" that is "wild by nature" (Rom. 11: 24) which cannot mean that an olive tree was not originally an olive tree but became so later by practicing to be an olive tree. 

Now let us notice what the apostle Peter wrote. 

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 4 kjv)

Two things need to be asked in regard to understanding this verse. How do people become "partakers of the divine nature"? Is it by long practice in righteous deeds? Or, is it by a birth of the Spirit? Second, what is meant by "corruption" existing in the world "through lust"? 

People become partakers of the divine nature by being born of God. Likewise, people become partakers of human nature by being born of Adam. The divine nature is holy, human nature is depraved. 

Corruption exists in the world "through lust," that is, through desiring what is evil. People do not need to learn to lie, steal, etc., or to crave what is forbidden. We see this in little children how it is in their nature to lie and to be selfish. Solomon said: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him." (Prov. 22: 15 nkjv) This "foolishness" involves doing wrong because it brings "the rod of correction." He also said that "the thought of foolishness is sin." (Prov. 24: 9 nkjv)

As to Donahue's other objection which queries why all descendants of Adam are not born without sin since Adam was originally without sin, I respond by saying that no one is a descendant of pristine Adam. Rather, all his descendants are descended from Adam post his fall into sin and his being cursed. Donahue also reasons that since no one is condemned for what parents do, therefore no one can be punished for what Adam did. However, Adam is a special case, because (1) he was the father of all and all are in scripture said to be "in him," and (2) he was the appointed head of the human race so that what he did they are said to have done.

Consider also that God does "bring the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." (Deut. 5: 9; etc.) When I debated Donahue on original sin he brought up Ezekiel chapter eighteen where the Lord says that a righteous living son "shall not die for the iniquity of his father" (vs. 17). Lord God says further:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (vss. 19-20 nkjv)

In this post (here) from my series on "Divine Justice Issues" I wrote on this argumentation from Ezekiel chapter eighteen. In it I showed that the prohibition of this chapter applied to the government of Israel exercising capital punishment. The prohibitions do not apply to God. No human government can visit the iniquity of fathers upon their children, but God reserves his right to do so. I encourage all to read my chapter on Ezekiel chapter eighteen. 

Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin"

Back in about 1992 I had a debate with Pat Donahue (we had several over the years) of the "Church of Christ" on the doctrine of "original sin" and whether all are born in sin. Pat has been sending me e-mails of some of his arguments he is still using with others in debate over this subject. Several of them have been on this issue. In his latest Donahue wrote:

""Born In Sin" Proponents’ Proof Texts Turn On Them: One of their primary proof texts in my “born in sin” debates is Romans 5:12. It is true the first part of the verse teaches sin was introduced into the world through Adam; we can read about that in Genesis 3; before Adam and Eve’s first sin, there was no sin in the world. But that has nothing to do with what is at issue. The second part of the verse has everything to do with it. It reads “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” and proves conclusively the “born in sin” concept is dead wrong. According to Rom 5:12b, we don’t die spiritually because of Adam’s sin; each man spiritually dies because each man sins. We all die because of our own sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezek 18:20a)."

From these words I see that Pat is still arguing that the "death" of Romans chapter five does not include physical death, but is strictly dealing with spiritual death. That is one of his errors. He has to take that position, which was the position of the heretic Pelagius, who said that physical death was a natural and inevitable part of biological life, not a punishment for Adam's sin. But, that view is very far removed from what the Bible teaches. Pat believes that the reason infants die in infancy is not because they are judged as guilty of Adam's sin. He believes they are born without sin, and therefore need no salvation. This error led him into many tight spots theologically. 

First, because he must exclude all who die in infancy or as small children from "the world" that Christ came to save, and yet he often defined "world" as the whole human race. So, when Paul speaks of "the world" being "guilty before God" (Rom. 3: 19) Pat says this is not the whole human race. When he argues against "limited atonement" or the idea that Christ did not die for all men he will mention texts such as I John 2: 2 where it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the "whole world." In debate with him on this I mentioned how he himself limits the atonement and the meaning of "whole world" by excluding all who die in infancy.

Paul teaches that all human beings are born in sin and under guilt and condemnation as a result of Adam's sin, his sin being imputed to all his posterity, for they were all "in him" seminally and representatively. Paul also says that this paradigm operates in justification, that just as all who Adam represented sinned in him when he sinned, so all who Christ, the second Adam, represented were justified in him. Just as Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, so Christ's righteousness is imputed to all the elect or all who he represented. In I Cor. 15: 22 Paul says "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This death cannot exclude physical death because physical death is what is focused upon in that chapter. 

The text in Romans five says "death passed upon all men for all have sinned." Death passes upon all human beings, including those who die as infant children, and so they must have sinned in some way, and that way was by sinning in Adam. Pat wants to say that infants die even though they are not sinners. He wants to say that "for all have sinned" means all have personally sinned, but that is a mistake. One proof of this is in Paul's words in II Cor. 5: 14 where he said: "if one died for all, then all died." That verse says that when Christ died, all he represented died in him. More on that shortly.

Simply put, Paul teaches in Romans chapter five that just as all who Adam represented are condemned and die by Adam's one act of disobedience, so all who Christ represented are justified and live by Christ's one act of obedience, and that as all have Adam's sin imputed to them so all have Christ's righteousness imputed to them. Pat's paradigm is different. He says that just as all are condemned as sinners and die by their own individual transgressions so all are justified and made righteous and live again by their own individual obedience and righteousness. Paul taught that we are condemned by the act of another and are justified by the act of another. Pat teaches that we are condemned by our own acts and are justified by our own acts. Two totally different paradigms. I'll take Paul's over Pat's.

Exegeting the Text

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

In Romans 5:12 Paul begins a long continuous comparison (known theologically as the "Adam-Christ typology"). The Protasis (The Condition/Action) is in verse twelve: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin..." The Apodosis (Consequence) is in verse 18 where Paul says: "...so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Verses 13-17 are generally put in parenthesis by translators for good reason (although in the Bible there are no parentheses) because in those verses Paul offers explanatory comments about the protasis. 

Paul's design is to show how sinners are justified from sin by showing how they were made sinners and condemned, for he believes the modus operandi is the same in both cases. His thesis is: as all who were represented in Adam are condemned and die (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of disobedience of that one man, so all who were represented in Christ the Second Adam are justified and made alive (both physically and spiritually) as a result of the one act of obedience of the one man Christ.

He also says that though the modus operandi is comparable in regard to the way all come under condemnation through Adam's transgression and come to be justified through Christ's righteousness, yet he also points out areas where they are not exactly the same, and is why he says "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." (vs. 15) The dissimilarity is seen in the fact that what Christ accomplished by his obedience does "much more" good than what evil consequences Adam's disobedience brought to pass. Paul also points out some other dissimilarities in verses 16-17 when he wrote:

"And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ."

Again, the good that comes from what Christ did far exceeds the evil that comes from what Adam did. But, the similarities are the focus. After all, Paul's thesis is that "Adam is a figure of him who was to come" i.e. Christ. Now let us read the words without the parentheses.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (vs. 12, 18-19)

Notice the words "as" and "even so" and "as" and "so also." Notice also the fact that it is the one sin of the one man that brings death, condemnation, and guilt, and which constitutes all men as sinners. Likewise it is the one righteous act of the one man that brings life and justification and constitutes all believers as righteous.

Pat Donahue's interpretation, and that of his "Church of Christ" brethren, is that Romans chapter five simply tells us the fact that all men are condemned and die by Adam's sin but not how they come to be condemned by that sin. After saying this they will then say that all die because all imitate Adam by personally sinning and it is by imitating Adam that they become sinners. But, if that is true, then we must say that all live again and are justified by imitating Christ. Or, to express it another way, people are condemned by their own acts of disobedience and are saved and justified by their own acts of obedience. But, this imitation view is incorrect for several reasons.

First, Paul says that many die as a result of Adam's sin who did not sin as Adam did. Said he:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam."

Pat's view is that death reigns over those only who sinned like Adam.

Second, such a view destroy's Paul's purpose and design, which is to demonstrate that just as people are condemned because of what someone else did (Adam), so people are justified because of what someone else did (Christ, the second Adam). 

Third, Paul says it is by the disobedience of one man that all are made sinners, but Pat's view is that it is by two men's sins that a person is made a sinner, by Adam's sin and the individual's sin. Likewise, Paul says it is by the obedience of one man that any are made righteous, but Pat's view is that it is by the obedient acts of two that a person is made righteous, by the obedience of Christ and by the obedience of that person. 

Fourth, Pat says that Adam simply showed us how to sin and be condemned thereby, and says that Christ simply showed us how to do right and be justified thereby. So, just as we are not condemned by what Adam did, so we are not saved by what Christ did.

Fifth, Pat's view that "all men" who die as a result of Adam's sin are really not all human beings, for he does not believe that physical death is a result of sin, and though many die in infancy it is not because they are sinners, for they are not sinners and need no salvation. So, he does not believe that "all men" means "every human being." Yet, if you debate him on the extent of the atonement, he will say "all men" and "whole world" means "every human being." That being so, he thereby admits that Christ died for those who die in infancy and that fact destroys his idea that infants are not born in sin, for Christ died for sinners. If "all humans have sinned" then this would include infants. But, many infants die without having committed any sin. So, the only way they could have sinned is by sinning in Adam, their representative or proxy.

Sixth, Pat's view denies that a person can be said to have acted in the person of another. He denies that when Adam sinned that all his posterity sinned in him. Yet we read: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." (Heb. 7: 9) If Levi can pay tithes in Abraham, then people may sin in Adam. Further, scriptures plainly say that when Christ died, every believer died, and when he was resurrected, every believer was resurrected. (II Cor. 5: 14; Eph. 2: 4-7) Further, Paul says: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22) Also, as said before, this is in the context of physical death and resurrection. "In Adam" means all who were represented in Adam and who sinned and died when Adam sinned. Likewise, "in Christ" means all who were represented in Christ and who were punished in Christ as their substitute.

Seventh, the Bible says that "all are under sin" and "all have sinned." (Rom. 3: 9, 23) In the same context the apostle says "all the world" is "guilty before God." (Vs. 19) He also said: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6: 23) If we say, as Pat does, that the death of this text excludes physical death, then the "eternal life" of the text must exclude the physical body. Hebrews 9: 27 says that "man" (all human beings) have been "appointed" to die and then after death comes "the judgment." This cannot be spiritual death to the exclusion of physical death. "After that" means "after dying physically." It cannot mean "after dying spiritually." And, the appointment to death is by God and for sin. Further, Paul wrote: 

"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (I Cor. 15: 54-56 kjv)

These verses plainly show that physical death is a penalty for sin. Anyone therefore who dies, or is dying, is a sinner. Therefore, infants, since they often die in infancy, die because they are condemned by the sin of Adam. "This corruptible" means "this corruptible body"; And, "this mortal" means "this mortal body." The "death" therefore of the text is physical death. This is further confirmed by the fact that we see the word "grave" in the text. Further, when the text says "the sting of death is sin" he shows that the death of the body is because of sin. Paul also wrote: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8: 10 kjv) Many commentators agree that by "the body" Paul means the physical body. Paul is saying that since Christ is in the believer's spirit and soul, they have eternal life and will never die, but the physical body will still die, and that "because of sin" yet remaining in the body till the resurrection.

Eighth, we are not our own saviors. If we are damned only by our own sins, then we are saved only by our own righteousness. The scriptures however teach that we do what we do because of what we are. We commit personal sins because we are born in sin and under condemnation and we work righteousness because we have been born again in righteousness and are justified. 

Ninth, it cannot be that Adam is the cause of all being sinners because he showed people how to sin and people follow his example for most sin who know nothing about Adam. It cannot therefore be said that Adam's sin made all men sinners by all men imitating him.

Tenth, if all men are born innocent and pure of sin, it seems as though some would not imitate Adam and sin. The fact that all men sin shows that there is a universal cause bringing about that effect. 

Eleventh, in Romans 5: 15 Paul says it is by the "trespass of one that the many died" and not "many are dying" (linear present tense/action). "Many died" is a Greek aorist indicative which almost universally refers to a past event. The same construction is in II Cor. 5: 14 (which I alluded to previously) where Paul says "if one died for all, then all died." "Died" is also aorist indicative in both cases, in "the one" (Christ) who "died" in the past and the "all" he represented in his death also died when he died. Pat's view, the Pelagian view, does not allow that all men died when Adam sinned and was pronounced dead nor does it allow for the fact that when Christ died all those he represented died.

Twelve, the text plainly says that the one sin of the one man was "unto condemnation" (vs. 16, 18), but Pat's Pelagian view says that Adam's sin was only unto his own individual condemnation. In verse nineteen Paul says - "by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted (made) sinners." The Greek word "κατεστάθησαν" may be translated as appointed, constituted, or made. It is also an aorist passive verb and this goes against the view of Pat for if people are made sinners by their own acts, an active verb would be used and not a passive verb. 

I suggest that Pat read the excellent commentary on Romans 5: 12-21 by Dr. Charles Hodge (here).