When you are either born into a religion or choose it for yourself in adult life, you have to accept various doctrines to be called a Christian. Those doctrines have been formed and accepted by the early Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils in the 3rd and 4th century, to create a cohesive set of believes that distinguishes Christianity from other Abrahamic religions.
However, I have noticed that people very rarely question those doctrines, check their roots, investigate the circumstances when those doctrines were created and generally act as defectives to see if this is what they want to believe in. Especially when they have questions and doubts but receive very inconclusive answers.
Religion is treated as a social and cultural concept rather than representation of the truth of God. And God reminds us to test everything, to check the fruits and to be smart as serpents but gentle as doves. Not everything that looks and sounds godly is of God and it is the same with any religion. As I went through the journey of questioning and researching myself, I wanted to show a different perspective on those doctrines or usual questions that are being asked when in Christianity. This is not an attack on Christians but more on the organized man-made religion. My aim is to not to take you away from God or from the belief in Jesus but to show that the religion has nothing to do with faith. If you have never investigated the roots or circumstances around those doctrines, perhaps you will find this insightful.
The first doctrine I would like to look at is Original Sin. What is “original sin”? Where does it come from? Did Jesus believe in this doctrine? How did the doctrine start to be established as we know it today?
Original sin – is a believe that all human beings are being born in a state of sinfulness, inheriting a broken nature inclined toward evil and being separated from God. Originating from Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Genesis, this “fallen” condition is believed to be cleansed via baptism and redeemed through Jesus’s sacrifice. The fall of Adam and Eve resulted in the loss of original holiness, weakened human nature, the inevitability of death, and an inclination toward sin. This created the belief that humans are born into sinful bodies and its nature is sin, therefore humans cannot achieve holiness on their own.
The idea of “the fall” of men and original sin has been discussed and analyzed by many Early Church Fathers but first started with the letters of the Apostle Paul, who wrote in the letter to Romans:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” Romans 5:12
However, Paul doesn’t clearly say that guilt is inherited—just that sin and death spread to all humans. This was later analyzed and developed by Early Church Thinkers like Irenaeus and Origin in the 2nd century.
Irenaeus saw Adam’s fall as a kind of immaturity, who made a mistake and could still grow towards perfection. Origin suggested more symbolic or philosophical interpretations of the Fall, linking it to the soul’s pre-existence and reincarnation, where previous life’s actions would result in current existence.
In the 4th and 5th century this doctrine developed more classic shape and has been systematically developed by Early Church Father Augustine of Hippo between 354 and 430 AD, largely in his debate with Pelagius. Augustine was the first that formalized the concept that all humanity inherits guilt and a sinful nature through natural descent. In his debates with the monk Pelagius, Augustine argued that humans inherit sinful nature from Adam and this condition is passed down through human reproduction. He also argued that people cannot choose good or reach God without divine grace as all are fallen in nature.
On the contrary, Pelagius argued that humans are born morally neutral and sin comes from a personal choice, not inheritance. The Church eventually sided mostly with Augustine, rejecting Pelagius’s view. It supported the idea of total dependence on God and the church, and it aligned with existing practices like infant baptism.
And this is an important factor – infant baptism was a baptism into the church and therefore that person would most likely stay in that church. Could this be also a form of manipulation of being tied to the church?
What is important to notice is that this was a debate. A debate is usually influenced by willingness to win, to be right and driven by ego. The question is: was Augustine influenced by willingness to win a debate and be right or to reveal divine truth? I leave it to the reader to ponder…
In the 5th century, Councils such as the Council of Carthage affirmed key Augustinian ideas by agreeing that sin affects all humans from birth and grace is necessary for salvation. In later years this doctrine was strengthened by theologians like Thomas Aquinas, then Martin Luther and John Calvin. John Calvin went as far as saying that original sin created “total depravity”.
Interestingly, different denominations in Christianity interpret this doctrine differently. Calvinism describing it as deeply corrupted human nature, Eastern Orthodoxy see it as ancestral sin and tendency towards sin, but not inherited guilt. Catholic church sees it as loss of original holiness and weakened free will. Anglican church sees it as humans are inclined towards evil, whereas Baptists emphasize individual responsibility for personal conversion and change. Therefore, different interpretations or debates on this subject continue. From the Hebrew Bible, we only see the consequences of Eve’s disobedience towards God as:
“To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3: 16
Therefore, the consequences are around pregnancy, difficulty to conceive, pain during labour, difficulty in marriages and lack of equality in marriages, as “he shall rule over you.” There is nothing about having a sinful nature, not being able to strive for holiness or passing on guilt.
For Adam, the consequences were:
“Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3: 17-19
Here we see that the consequence would be around work, money, difficulty to provide for the family and basic necessities would require lots of work. And after all this hard work, “to dust you shall return.” Therefore, this also does not support the idea of sinful nature but death entering the world.
We also see God speaking to Cain after God rejected Cain’s offering:
“So, the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” Genesis 4: 6-7
Therefore, God said to Cain that he should rule over the sin, that he should be able to overcome it and not be consumed by sin. This suggests that it is up to a human to either fall into temptation or stay strong. God wouldn’t say to Cain “you should rule over it” if He didn’t think this was possible.
It is also important to mention that this was straight after the Fall of Men, therefore Cain should have been affected as Eve conceived Cain after the Fall. However, God is highlighting that Cain is able to overcome sin, not the other way round, which suggests that the sinful nature is a matter of choice rather than inherited nature with no choice.
“Nevertheless, if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also, you will have delivered your soul.” Ezekiel 3: 21
The Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament focuses on the Law, and the scripture establishes the responsibility of people to overcome the temptation to sin. There is nothing about the fallen nature of people, about inheriting sinful nature or inability to overcome sin with its own will. This concept was introduced in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul.
Did Jesus teach about “original sin” or the sinful nature in the New Testament?
Jesus never used the term “original sin”, he never clearly stated that guilt is inherited from Adam, and he didn’t explain how sin entered or spreads through humanity. However, Jesus was calling people towards holiness, which suggests that Jesus thought it was possible.
How come then according to Augustine we are unable to reach God in this fallen nature? Did Augustine misinterpreted Jesus’ words or Augustine focused more on the teachings of the Apostle Paul that contradicted with the teachings of Jesus?
Jesus constantly called for holiness that starts with changes in the heart and inner transformation. He was reminding people the words of God – “be holy, for I am holy,” calling believers to mirror God’s moral perfection. He encouraged people to walk the “narrow way”, by being “set apart” from sinful patterns, embracing love and obedience, and pursuing inner righteousness over outward show. He was calling people to be the light and the salt of the earth, therefore in his eyes, holiness was possible to achieve on its own and it wouldn’t contradict with so called “original sin”.
That was actually developed 4 centuries after Jesus’ resurrection.
Why could Original Sin doctrine be wrong?
The fundamental criticism is, if Christianity is a religion of Jesus and formed based on Jesus’ teachings, then original sin doctrine has no place in it, because Jesus never taught about this concept. However, as we know, Christianity is very loosely formed on the teachings of Jesus and mainly on the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Early Church Fathers doctrines, therefore this changes the basis of the doctrine.
Another argument is the fact that sin must be tied to personal responsibility, not inheritance. In the Old Testament we see God saying:
“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.” Ezekiel 18:20
Therefore, we are not inheriting the guilt of the sin of Adam or ancestors, but only what our soul has committed.
And third and quite important point, especially in current times, is the fact that this doctrine puts people in a state of complacency. It’s this thinking of: “oh well, it’s not me but my sinful nature, I can’t do anything about it”. It’s the state of accepting and not striving for holiness, of putting guilt on children and making them feel guilty and unable to behave righteously.
It’s essentially lowering not only your standards but your inner being and your thoughts by labeling people as “fallen” or “totally depraved” and unable to reach holiness, however the Bible says: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he”. Proverbs 23:7
This doctrine plants the seed of fallen nature, of unrighteousness, of being unable to reach holiness on its own and developing thoughts of inadequacy. Jesus came to remind us of our nature and to show us that it is possible to achieve holiness, just as He did, however this doctrine takes that away and encourages no inner work or inner transformation.
In my personal view, the doctrine of “original sin” was created out of debate driven by ego, then formed by the church as it was beneficial to the church because it would tie people closer to the church and make people rely on church’s help. However, due to this idea not being taught or even mentioned by Jesus, I reject this doctrine and the “sinful nature” of my flesh. I view this more in the sense of being inclined to sin if we place ourselves in the environments that will most likely tempt us.
As humans, we are influential beings, we are driven by five senses, and we have a habitual nature. If I place myself in situations or environments that would cause me to sin, the more I do this the more I feel desensitized to this action. However, due to neuroplasticity and ability to train brain to different behaviors, the more I make good decisions, the more natural it becomes to my nature.
Moreover, this also calls for heart transformation and inner work. It is totally possible to not kill another human being or to not steal. It is totally possible to have respect for your parents and not want to do to others what you wouldn’t want to receive. It’s always a decision that starts in your heart, therefore – “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” Provers 4:23.
By Dagmara Z.