Why Do All People Sin? A Rational Defense
One intriguing aspect of Jonathan Edwards’ defense of the doctrine of original sin is his appeal to reason.
He suggests that if the Bible were silent on the matter, thinking people would still come to the conclusion that sin is a universal reality.
Here’s how he did it.
Questions for Those Who Reject the Doctrine of Original Sin
People who deny original sin often point to decadent societies as the cause of our degradation.
In other words, people are born innocent…but are corrupted by the culture they grow up in.
But if that’s the case, then shouldn’t some societies be innocent? Or at least one society in which the prevailing influence is virtue and not vice?
Furthermore, what corrupted these societies in the first place? Where did that evil creep in?
And why isn’t there at least a statistical average of, say, 50% innocent people? Forty percent? Thirty?
These are just a few questions Edwards raised. But there’s more.
The Problem with the “Nobody’s Perfect” Appeal
Optimistic and sanguine views of human nature–those that say man is basically good–will appeal to the phrase “Nobody’s perfect.”
Okay. Why?
If man at the core is good and innocent and evil is tangential, peripheral and on the outside, why doesn’t good eventually win out?
Why doesn’t the substance win over the accidental?
Strangely enough, in a culture like ours where objective, absolute values are rejected, people still appeal to “nobody’s perfect.”
Wait.
That can’t be. Haven’t we denied objective perfection?
Besides, even when the ethical bar is lowered, we recognize that this “standard” isn’t even met. We reduce what’s acceptable and still fail.
Funny thing is, people will appeal to an objective standard if you cross them.
Sleep with some one’s wife and see if they don’t hunt you down. Steal their car and see if they don’t call the police. Cheat on an exam and see if the professor doesn’t flunk you.
See, the credo “everything is permissible” often is thrown out the window when what someone else wants conflicts with what you want.
“Come On You Curmudgeon–Can’t We Do Any Good?!”
John Calvin recognized that we are, though fallen, capable of doing so-called good deeds. He called this “civic righteousness.”
Augustine referred to these deeds as “splendid vices.”
He went on to say that while these may on the outside conform to the law of God, deep down they proceed from a rebellious and woefully detached heart.
The Bible teaches that our deeds must not only conform to prescriptions of God’s law–but also rise from a heart that loves God.
This is apparent from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New.
And in the final analysis, the great commandment to love God with all your heart lies underneath all human morality and activity.
How Many Sins Is Too Many?
At one point in Edwards’ defense he says that there is a preponderance of evil deeds over good ones. But he points out even one sin is too many.
Edwards goes onto echo James: Sin against one point of the law is to sin against the whole law…
And of course against the law giver himself.
Furthermore, one act of obedience doesn’t negate one act of disobedience. In God’s economy, obedience is a mere condition to being a child of God.
A Few More Examples of Our Native Sin Nature
Edwards also sees evidence for man’s depraved nature in our bent to sin the moment we are morally capable.
Anyone with children will know what Edwards is talking about.
But original sin is also evident in the fact that we continually and progressively sin. There’s no secret: Suffering dominates world history.
And never diminishes.
Thus even the most sanguine observer must confess that something is wrong with this world.
Nor is sin entirely absent from the most sanctified saints. [Indeed, sanctified saints may sin less--but they WILL grieve more.]
The Final [Literally!] Piece of Evidence
Edward’s closes his argument by stating that the evidence of universal sin is also found in the universality of death.
That’s the biblical interpretation. And it represents a judgment on wicked mankind–a judgment even babies, who are presumably innocent, aren’t excused from.
The question one has to ask himself is this: Why do babies die? Why do we die? For that matter, why does anything die and not live forever?
I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Brutal and all.
Related posts:
17 Comments to Why Do All People Sin? A Rational Defense
Man, such a great article. I want to be like you. Okay, I want to be like Jesus, and then like you. 
I used to reject the doctrine of original sin and held to the popular “age of accountability.” I did this because of a couple reasons. Here they are in order:
1, I didn’t like the idea that I was inherently evil
2, I did think it was fair to say a child/baby was born with sin
3, I misinterpreted Jesus’ saying of “Therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”
It took me a long time, sir, to realize my understandings were flawed. A long time.
Anyone who believes people are inherently good at their core, has never watched a 14-month-old toddler defiantly stomp her feet and pout when her mother scolds her for pulling the videos off the shelf. For the third time. That morning.
When the rebel is looking up at you with sparkling blue eyes framed by devastatingly adorable auburn lashes, rosy plump cheeks, and her tiny pink lip thrust out as far as she can push it? Oh yes, it is “cute” by human definition. But it is important to note that original sin–defiance of God, expressed as defiance of Mom–is also on full display. The only thing infancy tempers, is the child’s full understanding of their urge to thoroughly annoy their parents. But if original sin didn’t exist, the Terrible Twos wouldn’t be so terrible! At a little over a year, Tabitha has a vocabulary I can count on one hand with fingers remaining. But her understanding of rebellion is already amazingly sophisticated. Don’t tell me children are innocent! They are only innocent in the most legal sense.
Denita, I don’t suppose you speak out of experience… lol
What’s amazing is that children do NOTHING for you. They hurt coming out, they hurt when they scream and cry and need feeding, they poop all over, they puke on you and everything else, they cost money, lots and LOTS of money, they mess up your whole life schedule(!), yet for some reason we do what ever we can to show them our love. And we hope that they will one day see and understand that we love them all for the sake of having a relationship with them, and for them to desire our guidance.
Striking resemblance of our Father, eh??
Experience…? Ehhhhhhnh, just a little bit… She’s a real fireball. And knows it. She already does everything she can to flirt with boys, and has her 7 year old big brother absolutely wrapped around her delicate plump pinkie finger. I’m salting away money so I can invest in a good security system by the time she’s in her teens. And practicing my aim, too…
“Striking resemblance of our Father, eh??”
Yeah, you’d think maybe that’s why there’s so many parenting references in the Bible or something!
How could death arise from sin?
Is sin a pre-existing condition of the world which existed before humanity came along, or is it something humanity brought into our world? Because it is clear to me that there was death in our world before humanity entered it.
EnjayFebruary 19, 2010
Jonathan – “Striking resemblance of our Father, eh?” – Yeah, what a coincidence. I wonder where the founders of Christianity got the idea for making us the children and God the father – they didn’t really have to look far did they? They’re just appealing to our inherent instinct to respect and trust parental figures. Without this instinct we wouldn’t make it too far after birth.
Denita, saying a toddler of one year old is not innocent makes my blood boil. You’re analysing an infants behaviour using a religious tool set? For goodness sake, this is like trying to fix your car engine with a spoon. You need to be using psychological and anthropological tools…dare I also mention evolution…to explain why toddlers appear to be mischievous. Without a toddler exploring in this way, experimenting, analysing cause and effect, pattern spotting and boundary testing they wouldn’t develop properly and be classified as having severe learning disabilities.
It’s so much easier for you to explain everything using religion, even though it never gives you the real answer…maybe that’s the problem with religious zealots, just too lazy to do real work and explain things properly and uncover the truth.
StooFebruary 19, 2010
“For that matter, why does anything die and not live forever?”
Because some life forms eat other ones, or become sick or injured. As for why aging happens, biologists are looking into it:
Enjay: to be sure, “striking resemblance of our Father” is not to be taken as “our Father is a striking resemblance of us”. We see characteristics of ourselves in our children, not the other way around. I think an appeal “to our inherent instinct to respect and trust parental figures” does not necessitate a god figure. And by the way, who says trusting and respecting parental figures is something inherent? We’ve got a lot of rebel people out there, young in age and old in age, who despise authority.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you say “without this instinct we wouldn’t make it too far after birth,” don’t you really mean that we are born inherently dependent? Even as adults, we are still dependent. We never leave dependency, but rebellion to authority is something that actually comes natural.
Demian FarnworthFebruary 19, 2010
Tele: I’m all ears.
Enjay: That it makes your blood boil I guess means you believe people are born innocent? And it’s not about a child being mischievous [we get that]…it’s about a child being devious. Big difference. Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing your answers to the questions I posed in the post.
Stoo: Okay. Why do they eat others, get sick or injured? As it is with why we age, it’s still speculation I guess.
StooFebruary 19, 2010
We eat for energy and nutrition to sustain our bodies. Plants evolved to get their energy from the sun, some animals eat those plants, other animals eat them in turn. So the necessities for continued living are passed along.
I’m really not clued up enough on biology to know much about work on aging. (my interests are more in Physics). But given our knowledge of so many other aspects of life, it makes sense to find a consistent scientific explanation.
Thing is, looking at how our bodies work today, there’s no suggestion that somehow we’d be immortal if we were better people…
Demian,
If I’m following you right, this post seems to stem from the implicit question, “Why are people so incredibly bad?”. This may qualify as a complex question as it contains the implicit assumption that people are unusually bad.
I’m not questioning that people do bad things, which I loosely define as things which cause others to suffer. I’m sure you could give innumerable examples of people’s actions that would fill us all with disgust and anger.
What I’m questioning is whether this should be surprising to the non-believer. It’s quite natural that people do good things and bad things. Which you prefer to emphasise depends on what you’re selling.
It seems to me that sin and evil are as essential to the Christian evangelist as house fires and buglary is to the insurance salesman. If house fires and burglary are not readily apparent, then fear of them will also do.
For example, when Pope Benedict visited Africa and said, “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”, at first I thought he was a naive idiot. But then I realised that from Catholicism’s point of view this is rather clever. He’s ensuring they have no hope.
As a further tangent, research indicates that countries with lower societal health are more religious. Causation is still mostly a matter of speculation however.
RobFebruary 20, 2010
Eshu,
To piggyback on your insurance example, fire and burglars are real problems wouldn’t you agree?. What if sin is too?
The gospel is not an attempt to “scare the hell out of you” so you live a dull life without alcohol and rated R movies. It’s a (free) solution for a real problem.
I wouldn’t even get a tiny sales commission for converting you.
AlyssaFebruary 22, 2010
I have no idea what Curmudgeon means…
But anyway, some people find the idea of original sin ridiculous (in terms of being punished for the sin of someone else), but really, it doesn’t have to be so absurd if you think it through.
If we all are born, raised, and surrounded by imperfect, sinful people, the chances of us being perfect are pretty slim, yes?
Sin has natural consequences (not just spiritual) – it harms ourselves and those around us (murder for instance).
If we also take the imperfect world into consideration (genetics, for example can result in less than ‘perfect’people in a biological sense), imperfect society, everything really – cause and effect logically results in more imperfect sinful people.
And it all started with one (or two, technically).
Enjay:
“You need to be using psychological and anthropological tools…dare I also mention evolution…to explain why toddlers appear to be mischievous.”
This is all to do with world view, is it not? If someone believes that more than psychology and anthropolgy are involved in making someone the way they are, then the will use those other “tools” in understanding/explaining behaviour also. No one is saying that psychology and anthropology are irrelevant, but rather than they are not necessarily mutually exclusive to “religious” concepts.
John R.February 22, 2010
Not trying to pick a fight with you Enjay, but I would say that you’re missing the point of the post about a toddler’s activities. Saying they aren’t innocent in this context doesn’t mean that they are deserving of bad things and damnation should be heaped on them, but rather points out that children are self serving without any instruction. My son didn’t need any help to learn to create a lie to try to misdirect me from a wrongdoing of his. In the same way, there wasn’t a long learning curve for him to determine that he should attempt to take whatever he wants from whomever he wants.
It’s essentially the Tarzan argument. Tarzan, unspoiled by human society, is incapable of deceit and only acts of our the purest motives. The rationale behind it is that man is inherently good and learns otherwise. That’s not to say that man isn’t capable of honesty, integrity and other virtues. The concept of original sin, though, is the direct opposite – man is inclined first to vice, not virtue.
I could easily be wrong, but it would seem that the behavior of toddlers would give us a window into our default setting. Mine didn’t seem to be too concerned with altruism.
AlyssaFebruary 22, 2010
John R
You just made me realise what could be misunderstood from my reply that I should clear up – I’m not arguing that a sinful nature results only from external causes (although whether biology would be considered external I don’t know) but rather that the concept of “inherited” sinfulness is not so foreign.
If we can accept that our corrupt societies etc. breed more corruption, and that biological (including psychological) and environmental flaws can lead to further such problems, it is not such a stretch to think that spiritual imperfection breeds more spiritual imperfection.
Humanity is not birthed in a vacuum – spirit, body, and all.
Demian FarnworthFebruary 23, 2010
Curmudgeon: a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person. [There's a picture of me next to the entry.] 
hanwestJuly 11, 2010
hi,Demian Farnworth,where ar
e you from?
Leave a comment
Search
Recent Posts
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Categories
Archives
February 18, 2010