Is there a difference between original sin and actual sin?
Question:
Dear Jeffrey
I am combing through reading material around the subject of Original Sin. I am critiquing a book written by a popular proponent of this doctrine, "Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle" by French theologian Henri Blocher. Amongst his discussions, there are two arguments he made to support his doctrine, which I have some difficulties with:
- In Genesis 25:26, we read about Jacob holding Esau's heel. Additionally, throughout Jacob's life, he committed some devious acts, such as deceiving Esau into selling his birthright and deceiving his father-in-law. He argues in support of original sin that Jacob is a devious character even when he was in his mother's womb.
- He also made a distinction between Original Sin and Actual Sin. Original sin, he argues, is in human nature and is unintentional; he cited Numbers 15:27. Actual sins are sins of omission, which are intentional, and he cited James 4:17.
I have read many write-ups within our brotherhood churches that refute the doctrine of Original Sin. How would you bring biblical explanations to refute these two specific arguments posited by Blocher?
Best regards.
Answer:
If Jacob's devious character was the result of Adam's original sin, then why isn't everyone devious? He also ends up conflicting with Paul. "And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, 'The older will serve the younger'" (Romans 9:10-11). Paul is quite clear that before their birth, Jacob and Esau had not done anything good or bad. They had not made any choices before they were born. The reason Paul cites this case is to demonstrate that God chooses people according to His purpose, not because the individual is deserving.
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin" (I John 3:4-5).
Blocher tries to avoid passages like I John 3:4 by claiming there are two types of sin (actual sin and original sin). He then claims that this passage is talking about actual sin, so its definition does not apply to original sin. However, he runs into a problem. The very next verse asserts that Jesus came to take away sin. If John is not talking about original sin, then Jesus' death on the cross is unable to remove the effects of Adam's sin. It would mean that everyone remains guilty of sin (Adam's sin). However, since Jesus' death takes away all sin (I John 1:7), there are no categories of sin under discussion. All sin is lawlessness. Sin is practiced and not inherited.
I'm not sure how Numbers 15:27 helps his point. Some sins are committed without intent, but some sins are committed in defiance of God (Numbers 15:30). Neither of these proves that sin is inherited. Sins of omission can be intentional or unintentional. Once again, this doesn't prove the existence of sin inherited from Adam.
It remains that the verse that proves the concept of original sin is false is: "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20). This rule has always been true. Cain, Abel, Seth, and the rest of Adam's children were not guilty of their father's sins. Adam was not guilty of Cain's sin. Sin is a result of an individual's choices and cannot be attributed to others.
Response:
Thank you, Jeff. This is very helpful.
