Are Men Born Sinners? - Library of Theology

they think reason is to be distrusted and rejected as an evil that would overthrow the
doctrines of the Bible if relied on!
But I repeat what I said in a former chapter: Would those who believe in the doctrine of
original sin reject reason if the doctrine of original sin were reasonable? What is the
reason that they reject reason when discussing original sin? It is because reason rejects
the original sin dogma. If our reason told us that it would be just and righteous for a
whole race to be condemned for the sin of one man, they would not object to reason. If
our reason told us that the heathen could justly by born sinners, and commit sin
necessarily because of an inborn sin nature, and then die in their sins without a
knowledge of the Gospel, and go down into hell, they would not object to reason. If
reason told us that sin, with its guilt and condemnation, could be passed on in the
physical constitution of man, they would not object to reason. If reason told us that a nonmoral
and non-personal entity called "flesh" could, contrary to its nature, take on
personality and moral character, and be sinful, they would not object to reason. No, they
object to reason only because they are conscious that the doctrine of original sin is
unreasonable.
In effect, the defenders of the doctrine of original sin admit that the doctrine of original
sin is unreasonable. For them to say that the testimony of reason should not be admitted
is a tacit admission that the necessary affirmations of their own reason testify against the
doctrine of original sin.
There are certain self-evident truths, direct perceptions of reason, known to be true to all
men. A thing cannot both be and not be. Two contradictory things cannot both be true.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The whole cannot be greater
than the sum of its parts. Every effect must have a cause. A creation implies a creator.
Moral character is non-transferable. There are no proxies in morals. Sin cannot be
imputed where it does not exist without injustice. Perfect justice cannot punish the
innocent for the guilt of another. Sin is personal and non-transferable. Now all of the
above truths are known intuitively. They do not need to be proved. They are direct
perceptions of reason, and cannot rationally be denied by any man.
But the doctrine of original sin does deny self-evident truths. It denies the self-evident
truth that there can be no proxies in morals and teaches that Adam committed sin for us
by proxy. It denies that moral character is non-transferable and teaches that Adam's sinful
character was transferred to all his descendants! It denies that sin cannot be imputed
where it does not exist without injustice and teaches that the infinitely holy and just God
imputed the sin of Adam to all his descendants. It denies that perfect justice cannot
punish the innocent for the guilt of another and teaches that God, who is perfect in truth
and justice, condemned the whole human race for the sin of Adam.
To say that the doctrine of original sin is unreasonable is a profound understatement.
There really never has existed a doctrine so unreasonable, so absurd, and so ridiculous as
this doctrine. It is not only absurd, it is plain superstition to believe that we sinned in
Adam thousands of years before we were born and began our existence. No man can