Summary5 min read

Defenders Podcast: Doctrine of Man (Part 24) – Evaluating the Doctrine of Original Sin

Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: July 1, 2020
Main Theme: A critical evaluation of the doctrine of original sin, with a focus on Romans 5:12–21, Augustine’s interpretation, and alternative explanations for the universality of human sin.

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dr. William Lane Craig conducts a careful assessment of the doctrine of original sin within Christian theology, particularly scrutinizing the scriptural foundation found in Romans 5:12–21. He addresses the influence of Augustine’s interpretation, critiques prevailing views regarding inherited sin, and presents possible alternatives for explaining why all humans sin.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Augustine’s View and Romans 5:12 ([00:16]–[02:43])

Augustine's Interpretation:
Craig explains that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin was rooted in a mistranslation of Romans 5:12. Augustine’s Latin text rendered Paul’s words “in whom all men sinned,” suggesting universal culpability in Adam.
- Quote: “Augustine's Latin text read, in whom all men sinned. That is to say, he thought that death spread to all men because in Adam all men sinned.” – Dr. Craig [00:53]
Greek Text and Modern Commentary:
Most scholars now recognize that the original Greek text is better understood as causal: “death spread to all men because all men sinned,” highlighting personal acts rather than inherited sinfulness.

2. Explaining Universal Sinfulness ([02:44]–[05:08])

The Problem of Human Sinfulness:
Craig cites commentator Douglas Moo, who insists some explanation is needed for why all people consistently choose evil, not by coincidence.
- Quote: “Paul affirms in this passage that human solidarity in the sin of Adam is the explanation.” – Dr. Craig quoting Douglas Moo [02:44]
- Moo notes that whether original sin is explained via solidarity with Adam or via inherited corruption, the central problem remains universal sin.
Legal vs. Moral Effects:
Craig argues that “sinning in and with Adam” (forensic or legal imputation) fails to explain humanity’s actual moral corruption:
- Quote: “The legal imputation of guilt does not transform the moral character of an otherwise blameless person.” – Dr. Craig [03:52]
- Just as pardoning a criminal does not make them virtuous, legal imputation doesn’t make someone a sinner.
Traditional Doctrine Re-examined:
Therefore, the doctrine traditionally assumes at least an inherited, corrupted human nature if not imputed guilt to explain the universality of sin.

3. What Does Paul Actually Teach? ([05:09]–[06:12])

Absence of Inherited Corruption in Romans 5:
Craig notes, referencing Moo, that Paul does not clearly teach inherited corruption in Romans 5:12–21:
- Quote: “There’s nothing here about a corrupted nature inherited from Adam.” – Dr. Craig [05:53]
Alternative Explanation:
Instead, Craig offers a naturalistic account: human self-seeking and animal survival instincts, coupled with a corrupt social environment, explain universal sin.
- Quote: “Our inherent self-seeking animal nature, in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised, explains the universality of sin.” – Dr. Craig [06:16]
Adam’s Role:
Adam acts as the floodgate introducing sin and death, but each person’s own actions bring condemnation.
- “Death then spread to all men because each one sinned in his own turn.” – Dr. Craig [06:45]

4. Jewish Context: 4 Ezra 7:118 ([07:10]–[09:19])

Pseudepigraphal Literature:
Some scholars link Paul’s thought to Jewish texts like 4 Ezra 7:118, arguing it anticipates the imputation doctrine.
- Craig reads the text in context and finds a much more balanced statement between Adam’s failure and individual responsibility.
Ezra’s Complaint and Divine Response:
Ezra laments Adam’s sin affecting all his descendants, but the text clarifies that everyone “wages the contest” and suffers or is rewarded according to their own choices:
- Quote: “For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone but ours also, who are your descendants.” – Dr. Craig reading 4 Ezra [08:08]
- “He answered and said, this is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth shall wage, that if he is defeated he shall suffer...but if he is victorious he shall receive...” – Dr. Craig reading 4 Ezra [09:01]
Harmonizing with Paul:
The passage shows the same balance as Romans 5:12—Adam brought sin/death, but each person is culpable for their own sin.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Augustine’s error:
“Augustine’s doctrine was in fact based upon a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.” – Dr. Craig [00:44]
On legal imputation:
“Just as the pardon of a condemned criminal does not suddenly make him a virtuous person... so the legal imputation of guilt does not transform the moral character...” – Dr. Craig [03:38]
On alternative explanations:
“This explanation of the universality of human sin does not require even that Adam and Eve had biological ancestors, merely that they were created by God with a biological propensity to survival that is then reinforced and distorted by upbringing and society.” – Dr. Craig [06:25]

Important Timestamps

00:16 – Introduction; Outline of Augustine’s view and its textual basis
02:44 – Douglas Moo’s perspective on human solidarity in Adam
03:36 – Distinguishing legal and moral implications of original sin
05:09 – Romans 5:12–21's silence on inherited corruption
06:16 – Alternative explanation: natural and social factors
07:10 – Jewish context: 4 Ezra 7:118
09:01 – The contest of individual moral responsibility

Conclusion and Next Steps

Dr. Craig concludes that the scriptural foundation for inherited corrupted nature is lacking in Romans 5, and that both biological and environmental factors suffice to explain universal sinfulness. Classical Jewish sources, when read in context, support the balance between Adam's effect on humanity and personal responsibility.

“Just as we find in Romans 5:12: as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned.” – Dr. Craig [09:18]

Dr. Craig suggests that the next lesson will consider possible philosophical defenses for Augustine’s doctrine, should one wish to uphold it.

This summary captures all major arguments and scriptural discussions while preserving Dr. Craig’s intellectual tone and approach.

Loading summary

Transcript3 lines

[00:01]
A
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig today the Doctrine of Man, Part 24. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org Good morning.
[00:17]
B
Welcome to Defenders. I hope that you found this section on the doctrine of sin to be as interesting and stimulating as as I have today. We want to come to some evaluation of the doctrine of original sin. Now, I've been asked by some of our viewers to deliver my lesson a little bit more slowly to help facilitate note taking. So I'm going to try to use a more measured pace in our lesson today. The degree to which we're persuaded to adopt Augustine's view of original sin and is going to depend upon our exegesis of Romans, chapter 5 12:21. Augustine's doctrine was in fact based upon a mistranslation of Romans 5:12, where Paul says, therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men. And and then Augustine's Latin text read, in whom all men sinned. That is to say, he thought that the text meant that death spread to all men because in Adam all men sinned. But that's not how the original Greek text reads. Most commentators construe the Greek expression as a causal conjunction because and take all men sinned to refer to people's own individual acts of sin. Paul says then, that death spread to all men because all men sinned. Douglas Moo, who is the author of a major commentary upon the Book of Romans, insists that some explanation is needed for why people so consistently turn from good to evil of all kinds. No one thinks that every person just sins by sheer cross coincidence. Moose says, and I quote, paul affirms in this passage that human solidarity in the sin of Adam is the explanation. And whether we explain this solidarity in terms of sinning in and with Adam or because of a corrupt nature inherited from him, does not matter at this point. Now, Moo's first alternative, sinning in and with Adam, in fact does nothing to explain why people consistently sin. For as we saw in our study of the doctrine of the atonement, the imputation of sin is purely a legal or forensic notion which has no effect whatever upon a person's moral character. Just as the pardon of a condemned criminal does not suddenly make him a virtuous person, but simply no longer legally guilty, so the legal imputation of guilt does not transform the moral character of an otherwise blameless person. Hence the traditional doctrine of original sin postulates minimally a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam if not imputed guilt as the explanation for the universality of sin. But does Paul teach such a thing? As Mou observes, the doctrine is perhaps surprisingly nowhere to be found in Romans 5:12, 21. There's nothing here about a corrupted nature inherited from Adam that raises the question, is there no other alternative to either imputation or corrupted nature for explaining the universality of sin? Well, of course there is. Our inherent self seeking animal nature, in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised, explains the universality of sin. Such a natural biological tendency towards survival and hence selfishness, coupled with a morally corrupt environment suffices to explain why all have sinned. This explanation of the universality of human sin does not require even that Adam and Eve had biological ancestors, merely that they were created by God with a biological propensity to survival that is then reinforced and distorted by upbringing and society. So, on this view, Adam was the floodgate through which sin and death entered the world, and death then spread to all men because each one sinned in his own turn. When Paul goes on to say that by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, that one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, that because of one man's trespass death reigned through that one man, and that many died through one man's trespass, he may be understood to trace all sinning, and hence condemnation and spiritual death, back to Adam's initial transgression through which sin entered the world. Scholars sometimes appeal to pseudepigraphal Jewish texts like 4 Ezra 7, verse 118 for Ezra 7, 118, as an anticipation of Paul's doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all men? But these scholars typically fail to quote the verse in context. Here is the conversation that takes place between Ezra and and the Lord I answered and said, this is my first and last word. It would have been better if the earth had not produced Adam, or else, when it had produced him, had restrained him from sinning. For what good is it to all that they live in sorrow now and expect punishment after death? O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also. Who are your descendants? For what good is it to us if an eternal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? And what good is it that an everlasting hope has been promised us, but we have miserably failed? Or that safe and healthful habitations have been reserved for us but we have lived wickedly or that the glory of the Most High will defend those who have led a pure life but we have walked in the most wicked ways or that a paradise shall be revealed, whose fruit remains unspoiled and and in which are abundance and healing but we shall not enter it because we have lived in unseemly places or that the faces of those who practiced self control shall shine more than the stars, but our faces shall be blacker than darkness. For while we lived and committed iniquity, the we did not consider what we should suffer after death. He answered and said, this is the meaning of the contest which every man who is born on earth shall wage that if he is defeated, he shall suffer what you have said but if he is victorious, he shall receive what I have said. For Ezra 7:116 29 read in context the text actually expresses beautifully the balance between Adam's failure and people's responsibility for their own acts of sin. Just as we find in Romans 5:12 as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned. Next time, we'll take a look at how Augustine's doctrine of original sin might be philosophically defended if we should choose to adopt it. Until then, God bless.
[10:45]
A
The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more, go to reasonablefaith.org.