Are Men Born Sinners? - Library of Theology

intuitively that we could not be to blame for being born sinners. I was preaching that men
were born sinners, even though it conflicted with my irresistible convictions of justice.
Also, recently I heard an old preacher preaching on original sin. He preached the standard
sermon, using the standard proof-texts. Then he concluded his sermon almost facetiously
with the words, "When I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God all about this." In this way,
he tacitly acknowledged his consciousness of the obvious injustice of the original sin
doctrine. The very advocates of this doctrine cannot escape their God-given convictions
that it is unjust.
7. It is a remarkable fact that there are several conflicting theories of original sin instead
of just one. Why is this? The reason is founded in the great problem of original sin: Man's
reason testifies that it is unjust. And so, several different theories have been formulated,
and have come down to us, each one proposing to have the best legal basis upon which
God might be just in condemning the whole human race for the sin of one man. This
brings us to the discussion of a theory we have not mentioned up until now, the Arminian
Theory of original sin. This theory was formulated by Arminius in the early part of the
17th century and was a reaction to the injustice perceived in the Augustinian theory of
original sin. Arminius taught that babies are not guilty for the sin of Adam. They inherit a
depraved nature from Adam, but God bestows upon each individual at the dawn of
consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit sufficient to counteract the effect of
their inherited depravity and make obedience possible. So that men are able to obey God
if they will cooperate with the special influence of the Holy Spirit. Under his theory, men
are guilty only when they consciously and voluntarily commit sin.
Like Arminius did, preachers, Sunday school teachers, and Christians in general make up
their own brand of original sin because of compelling convictions of its injustice. For
instance, Augustine taught that infants who die without baptism are damned, but this
teaching is too offensive to the conscience of most Christians. So they teach a different
brand of original sin or remain silent upon this point that is so repulsive to the
conscience. They use all the standard proof-texts, such as Eph. 2:3, "By nature the
children of wrath," to prove the doctrine of original sin, but are either unaware of the
implications this has for infants who die or come up with a brand of original sin in which
babies are not accountable and guilty for original sin until they reach the "age of
accountability." They invent a new brand of original sin because their convictions of
justice tell them that children cannot be guilty before they actually sin. They are ignorant
that the doctrine of original sin makes children "by nature the children of wrath" from the
time they are born. They are unaware of the implications and inconsistencies of what they
believe and teach. They are teaching what they have been taught, and since they can
quote some proof-texts from the Bible, they feel they are on firm ground. They are
unaware of the fact that their irresistible convictions of the unjustness of the original sin
doctrine has compelled them to come up with a brand new kind of original sin that could
only be true if the dogma of original sin were false!
God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter
3:9