Original Sin or Free Will?

(Randsom Dogma analysis)

I am told that Adam's sin put all of humanity under a curse and Jesus death came to break that curse. Let us analyze this teaching and look at it a little more deeply by testing it.  

The main tests would be scriptural consistency, apparent proof of everyday life and the third will be logic.

Three main points of the Ransom Dogma, concept of Original sin, Jesus death being my salvation:

1.       I am being held ransom for Adams original sin

2.       Every child is born sinful

3.       Jesus apparent death solves the 2 preceding predicaments for humanity:

·         Jesus pays the ransom of Adams original sin and guarantees me eternal life

·         Jesus breaks the curse of the original sin

·         Jesus attains potential forgiveness for all my sins past, present and future

 ..............................................................................................................................

1.     Humanity is being held ransom for Adam’s original sin

Two Problems with this first point:

• ·         Predicament of FREE WILL
• ·         Predicament of PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

-      Brief look at verses that state personal accountability

-      Brief look at verses that apparently imply inherited sin

-      Reconciliation of these seemingly contradictory verses

Predicament of FREE WILL – WHAT IF ADAM HAD PASSED THE TEST?!!!!!

Had Adam passed the test when Satan came to tempt him – there would still be a problem - we would not be living happily ever after in the garden of Eden...

The problem is:  I would still be faced with the dilemma of my own free will regardless of Adam’s obedience – even in the perfect Garden of Eden.  The institute of FREE WILL was given to man from inception.  He was not created a robot.  He was given a will to choose to either love God or not.  Obedience is not forced on him.  God created every human being including Adam with FREE WILL – that’s what makes us human and gives substance to a relationship - that we choose to love God as love can’t be forced. 

It is important to also note that the test subject in the Garden of Eden was put in place BEFORE the devil came and tempted Eve.  Why would God want to test Adam if he was perfect already?  A test is done to prove something. It was a test to see if Adam and Eve would prove treacherous with the free will that had been instilled in them.  Every human being has to be tested too.  The subjects of our tests are different and more complex than the original test set up for Adam – but none the less – they are still tests. Adam was perfect yet he sinned.  Despite his perfection – he had to contend with the dilemma of his own free will.  So the same goes for every human after him. 

So there could be a few possible scenarios to maintain perfection in the Garden of Eden with Adam’s seed:  God removes the test subject (tree of knowledge) so that a choice does not need to be made between good and evil anymore OR God removes our FREE WILL or God removes the devil from the garden so that we don’t get tempted by him.

In the first scenario I would have no “wrong” options to choose from even though my free will still existed – which begs the question what the point of having a free will would be for if we didn’t have to choose to love and obey God. 

The second scenario is where God gets rid of free will- so essentially we would have some kind of robotic existence with no real implication in terms of our relationship with God…both scenarios raise more questions for the discerner. 

Adam’s disobedience or obedience still leaves me with the conundrum of my own free will.

Another point to note that many overlook – is the presence of the devil.  The devil was also ALLOWED into the perfect Garden of Eden.  The devil and his whisperings were present – which raises the question – will the devil also be ALLOWED into HEAVEN?  This is a supposedly perfect Garden with no sin, evil etc – but SATAN is there.  Which begs the question WHY?  Clearly this was not heaven.  They were not in heaven as it would make no sense that satan was living in heaven with them.  So from the onset – it is clear that the human had to have his free will tested – BEFORE he gets to heaven where eternal life is.  So when Adam was ousted – was it a physical ousting from a geographical location – or was it an ousting from a state of being in sinlessness, blessings and nearness to God? 

This point brings me to the next problem of the ransom doctrine.

Predicament of PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
(I am not accountable for Adam’s sin and Jesus is not accountable for mine)

What about all the scriptures that clearly and unambiguously declare personal accountability as an unchangeable law?  How do we reconcile those verses with the other verses that talk about father’s sins being visited upon their children?

First we will look at the verses which state in unambiguous terms about personal accountability of ones sins (i.e. I am not responsible or guilty for Adam’s disobedience), then we’ll look at the verses which state that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children and last we will attempt to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory concepts in the bible. 

The following are some verses stating personal accountability:

·         Jeremiah 31:30 NKJV “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge”

·         2 Chronicles 25:4 NKJV “The LORD commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin’ ”

·         Ezekiel 18:20 NKJV “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him”

·         Deuteronomy 24:16 NKJV “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

The following are the verses which talk about the fathers sins affecting their children:

·         Exodus 34:7 “Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

·         Numbers 14:18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’

·         Deuteronomy 5:9  “You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..”

·         Exodus 20:1-26 “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me’

·         Psalm 51:5 ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’

·         John 9:1-3 ‘As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.’

      Reconciliation of the two seemingly contradictory streams of verses

Everyone is accountable for their own sins because of the institute of free will – so why is it that God says He will visit the iniquity of the father on the children up until the 4^th generation?  What does He mean by that and where is the justice in that?

Every time that phrase “visit the iniquity of the father on the children up until the 4th generation...” is stated in the scriptures – if you will notice - it is in the context of one of the most heinous spiritual crimes – Idolatry.  Turning your back on the ONE who created you and all that you enjoy – this is the most heinous crime.  Not appreciating and acknowledging the very source of your being - is hateful in itself and rightly so – God says He will punish those who do this.  But why “visit” the sin on the children of the perpetrator up until the 4^th generation? 

    There are three vital points that the word “VISITING” implies in the verse and must be         

    proclaimed: 

Ø  The influence of the father on the children

Ø  The consequences of the father’s sin on the children

Ø  Bearing the consequence of father’s sin as opposed to his guilt

The influence of the father:

If you will notice – fathers can only be in contact with their children up until the 4^th generation.  Let’s say Idolatrous Father has a son (1^st generation), Father may still be alive when his son has a son (2^nd generation), father may still be alive when his grandson has a son (3^rd generation) and father may just survive enough to witness his great great grandson.  He can still be an active influence in the lives of his children up to 4 generations and because of his potential influence where his sons could follow in his footsteps– he is warned thereof that the consequences would be far reaching in his seed. Of course the sons also have the will power to reject their father’s incorrect influence and follow God’s statutes.

The consequences of the father’s sin on the children:

When someone shuns God – he would obviously disobey God’s laws.  Whether they are the health laws or other spiritual laws( all laws are for our wellbeing). As a result he leads a very unhealthy, stressful and unhappy life.  Disobedience affects a person physically and mentally.  Unfortunately in many cases – this physical consequence is born by the children of the sinful parents.  The parents may be alcoholic, maybe aren’t hygienic, smokers, careless, angry, impatient, violent – all these things can have an astounding bearing on the physical formation of a child.  Heart diseases, cancers, deformities and the likes can be inherited as a consequence of the father’s disregard of God’s laws.

Bearing guilt or bearing consequences?

We may suffer the consequences of someone's actions. But this is different than being guilty of those actions. If you have a father who is addicted to gambling, you may not have enough to eat because he is losing all his money and become malnutrition – his sins affect your health and well-being.  Or if you have an alcoholic parent – you may be born with deformities etc.  The consequences of a father’s actions may have an impact on you but they don't make you guilty of his wrongdoings.   This is the 3 fold way of understanding the term “visiting the iniquities of the father on the children..”

Ezekiel 18 makes it very clear that the guilt of the fathers is not charged against their children at all. 

Ezekiel 18:4, “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die." 

Notice the last sentence. The soul that sins shall die.

Ezekiel then gives an illustration of a righteous man who faithfully keeps God's law. 'If he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully-- he is righteous and will surely live,' declares the Lord God (Ezekiel 18:9). That man has a son who is violent and who sheds blood. Will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head (Ezekiel 18:13).

On the other hand, if a wicked man has a son who sees all his father's sins but does not follow in his footstep (Ezekiel 18:14), he shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live. As for his father ... he shall die for his iniquity (Ezekiel 18:17-18).

Ezekiel repeats the same message in v. 20. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him (Ezekiel 18:20).

This brings us to the next point:

2.     Every child is born cursed/sinful/condemned

One problem with this second point:

·         Jesus says heaven belongs to children

·         Are we born with sin – or born into a sinful environment?

Jesus says heaven belongs to children

Matthew 19:13-14. ‘Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Does the word “such” exclude the example?

For to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.' The kingdom is for such people. The word 'such' means childlike (not childish) people. The question is whether it also means children. Because if we say that it also includes literal children, then we have a problem with the doctrine of original sin.  Do we not all have a sinful nature from the day we are born, deserving nothing but the fury of God?

Some might say: 'Jesus does not actually mean that children are admitted to the kingdom of heaven,' they say, 'but only grown-ups who become like children.'

Well, is the word 'such' limited only to people who spiritually become children permitted, you must become like them.'

Mark 9:37, “Jesus took a child in His arms and said, whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.”

 If we receive a child (any child, including the one in Jesus' arms), we receive Jesus. The expression 'one such child' refers to the child Jesus was holding and to any other child like him. We cannot say that the word 'such' excludes the example.

But what about the children who die before they are old enough to exercise faith? How can I say that they are not condemned? Do they not sin? Yes, they do. Human free will manifests itself very early in life. But then, how can they be saved if they don't have the capacity to understand and believe the gospel?

If we follow the logic of the doctrine of the original sin where all humanity is born cursed and therefore doomed at birth, it seems that we have to conclude that infants are condemned to go to hell.

So when Jesus says, “to such belongs the kingdom of heaven”, He means that the heavenly kingdom is composed of literal children and of people who are spiritually like children. The children are part of it. 

It is scripturally clear that  children are not born cursed or under some kind of ransom demand as Jesus was saying heaven belongs to them even before he had supposedly died for the sins of the world.  

An example from Judaism

If we look to Judaism we can get further clarification on the matter: Every Jewish boy, at the age of thirteen, becomes a bar mitzvah, a 'son of the law.' That's what bar mitzvah means, a son of the law. Before the age of thirteen, you are not under the law. You are considered exempt from the law. But when you become a bar mitzvah, having reached the age of reason, and being able to understand the law, you become morally responsible for your own actions. The law now rests upon your shoulders. 

Essentially accountability for your actions starts at a certain age – you are not born accountable.

Children are born innocent, that is, they are born guiltless or without sin. As they approach adolescence, they are increasingly able to handle abstract ideas and they eventually understand the concepts of sin and guilt. Those who do not reach that point of awareness are in a state of imputed innocence.

So what of this verse: John 9:1-3 ‘As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.’ 

After looking at all the verses of personal accountability and consequences as opposed to guilt – this verse could only mean consequences of his parents sin rather than guilty of his parent’s sin.

Even logically it makes no sense.  An innocent child born condemned for someone else's sin.  What kind of sick theology is that?

3.  Jesus apparent death solves the 3 preceding 

predicaments for humanity:

3.1      Jesus pays the ransom of Adams original sin and guarantees me eternal life

3.2      Jesus breaks the curse of the original sin

3.3      Jesus attains potential forgiveness for sins past, present and future for    all of humanity

         

Jesus pays the ransom of Adams original sin and guarantees me eternal life 

Two things happened when Adam sinned. 

·         We apparently inherited death and are immediately cursed at birth ( a teaching which I proved is contrary to scripture and Jesus own teachings)

·         Every Human being is immediately born into an imperfect and sinful environment.

So what exactly did Jesus death do for me?  

Does that mean he took away my ability to sin or the consequences of my sin?  

The curse as understood in the context of the ransom dogma – means that every human is born with sin and must meet death.  I am being told the MAIN criteria to eternal life is accepting Jesus as my personal saviour as Jesus was the perfect ransom to counter Adam’s original sin and this guarantees me eternal life after I die. 

So what about this verse that clearly states eternal life if someone obeys the laws:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor does the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

The thing that gets me is this – this process of repentance and turning back to God was well established before Jesus apparent death. 

A few more questions arise from this. 

·         What value did Jesus deaths add to the process of repentance? 

·         Is it by Jesus death that I achieve eternal life – or is it by repentance and following the commandments of God?

·         Who is the beneficiary of the Ransom?  Is it Satan or God?  If it is God…then we can say that – all sins have been paid in full including future sins?

And this brings me to my next subtopic … 

Did Jesus break the curse of the original sin? 

Can anyone attest that the “curse” of the original sin has been lifted from them after they “received Jesus as their personal saviour”?  I doubt it – as evidence shows they are still sinning.  So what happened?

So what sins did Jesus take away?  

Did he take away the consequences of our sins?  Cause he sure didn't take away my ability to sin.  

I am still sinning so the CURSE OF ADAM IS ALIVE AND WELL in every human – which now makes me sad to say “WHAT WAS THE POINT OF JESUS DYING?”

If the original sin curse has been broken:

Every child who is born after Jesus death – is not born cursed – he does not have the curse of the original sin.  Jesus death broke that curse.  But unfortunately – that can’t be true.  Every human still sins!!  The child is still born to sinful parents into an imperfect environment with the dilemma of his/her free will.  Nothing has CHANGED!!  

What's happening here is a simple renaming of  FREE WILL as THE CURSE of the original sin.  

So I am back to square one regardless of what ‘supposedly’ transpired with the death of Jesus - I am still in the same boat that every other human being was in before the time of Jesus.  I need to make a conscious decision to repent and change.  This repentance can’t be possible without faith and sincere remorse.

Which also proves that children born with sin is not true.  On the opposite side of the debate – if Jesus did indeed break the curse where a child is born with sin – unfortunately the child still has free will to exercise and as such – still needs to choose either to obey or not and thus nullifies the debate of the original sin being inherited.  Again  - FREE WILL is being misunderstood as THE CURSE of the original sin. 

So what value did Jesus death add to this process of achieving eternal life?  How does his death make the process of repenting and becoming a better person a more effective process than it was before?

Jesus attains potential forgiveness for sins past, present and future

How can Jesus attain forgiveness for all sins while still expecting me to be a better person without repentance?  

Is not forgiveness conditional upon personal repentance?

So…Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus. 

Forgiveness is attained by personal repentance of one’s own sins – NOT sacrifice.

Psalms 40:6 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire-- but my ears you have opened -- burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.'

Psalms 51:16-17  'You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.   My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.'


JOHN THE BAPTIST

John the Baptist was preaching the message of repentance as the kingdom of God was at hand BEFORE Jesus apparently died for the sins of the world.  Repentence was being preached prior... think about that.

Being purified is not the same as being forgiven.  Forgiveness does not remove the disease that caused you to sin in the first place. Being purified from the disease that caused you to commit the sins in the first place is a life long journey.  

Purification takes you to the next level in nearness to God– a journey which you have to personally take. No one can take it for you.  Not even Jesus.

In saying that Jesus achieved forgiveness for all of mankinds sin past and present just makes no logical sense to me. 

.................................................................. 

Islam’s teaching on this matter makes more sense to me:

Islam teaches me that man was created to worship God in this life and is being tested to see who is worthy of eternal life.  Those with FREE WILL can prove treacherous and that is why – the testing ground is this temporal life filled with temptations and trials to see who is worthy and who is not.  FREE WILL is a powerful force and those endowed with it need to be tested first to see who will strive with himself/herself to choose to love and obey God.  Those who come through winning - deserve eternal life. 

It is not a gift given by the death of Jesus as we have our FREE WILL to contend with – and that is a personal struggle that has to be proven personally to be considered a worthy candidate of eternal life.  If not – it will be like Adam all over again – He was perfect – yet he CHOSE to disobey.  If we prove here in this life that – we want to do the right thing and we choose to do the right thing despite our freedom to do otherwise – we pass the test and prove worthy of eternal life as we show we are not treacherous.

This made good sense to me and so I chose Islam as even the Bible purports the above conclusion.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°


EXTRA NOTES

There are also other teachings that will be addressed in this blog:
● The sacrificial system from the book of leviticus and its implications on salvation
● The purported prophecy of the death of Jesus in the book of Isaiah 53
● A closer look at the assumed identity of Abrahams son's sacrifice and how this episode is intepreted in maintream Christendom.