#878 Whence Our Inclination to Sin?

Dr. craig’s response

I’m delighted to receive a question on the topic of my current study, Dean!

The traditional doctrine of original sin affirmed by the Protestant Reformers involves two components: (1) the guilt of Adam’s sin is borne by every one of his descendants and (2) Adam’s sin resulted in a corruption of human nature that is transmitted to all of his descendants. By contrast the Orthodox Church and many Arminian Protestants affirm only (2). In my In Quest of the Historical Adam I argue that neither of these component doctrines is, in fact, taught in the Bible, either in the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 or in Paul’s exposition of Adam’s sin in Rom 5. 12-21.

If that is correct, it leaves us wondering about the universality of human sin. Why do humans have such a proclivity to evil? It seems to me plausible that the roots of sin lie in our inherent self-seeking animal nature in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised. Daryl Domning expands on this view:

We all sin because we have all inherited—from the very first living things on earth—a powerful tendency to act selfishly, no matter the cost to others. Free will enables us to override this tendency, but only sporadically and with great effort; we more readily opt for self. This tendency in all of us is what our tradition calls ‘the stain of original sin.’[1]

Such a natural biological tendency toward survival and, hence, selfishness, coupled with a morally corrupt environment, suffices to explain why we all sin. Domning notwithstanding, this explanation of the universality of human sin is not incompatible with tracing the origin of our selfish behavior back to Adam and Eve; indeed, the view does not require even that Adam and Eve had biological ancestors, merely that they were created with a biological propensity to survival that is reinforced by society and upbringing. Biological ancestors of Adam and Eve are no more required (or excluded) than a corrupted nature in order to explain the universality of human sin among normal, adult members of our species.

So the universality and pervasiveness of human sin can be plausibly explained, not on the basis of a corrupted nature, but on the dual basis that we are each born with an animal nature that of biological necessity is oriented toward survival and therefore inclines us to self-interest and that the human community in which we are born and raised is profoundly evil. Such a view strikes me as both biblical and much more plausible than the traditional view of inherited sin.

The traditional doctrine of hereditary corruption is not only extra-biblical, but the mechanism for the transmission of such corruption of human nature is difficult to understand. Augustine’s belief that moral corruption is transmitted through the semen in sexual intercourse is met with universal disapprobation, not simply because of its negative view of human sexuality, but because moral properties are not the sort of things that can be transmitted physically.

The problem of transmission has given great impetus to traducianism, the view that souls are not specially created by God but are somehow generated by the souls of one’s parents, for on such a view of the soul’s origin corrupted souls naturally produce similarly corrupted souls. If we are born with such a hereditary corruption, however, it is plausible that this corruption is not itself something for which we are guilty, much less culpable, for we can hardly be morally responsible for being born with such corruption, any more than we can be held responsible for being born with a genetic birth defect. If this is right, calling hereditary corruption “original sin” is misleading. Still, traducianism, if plausible, could provide some basis for the transmission of non-culpable defects of the soul.

On a creationist view, by contrast, one would have to say that God supernaturally creates a corrupted soul for each human being. On creationism, then, corruption is not really a case of hereditary sin, except in the very indirect sense that the reason God bestows a corrupted soul in each person is because of Adam’s sin. But then it is difficult to see how God could create evil human beings without himself becoming the author of evil. Thus, transmission remains problematic for the creationist.

The Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema admits that “we do not understand how this corruption can be transmitted from parents to children; the laws of human heredity can provide no explanation for this process. But both Scripture and experience tell us that the pollution of sin is indeed passed on from parents to their offspring.”[2] But Scripture does not tell us that, and experience is just as plausibly explained by my biological-social account. One of the advantages of the view proposed here is that it involves no transmission of either guilt or corruption. Each person is naturally born into a society pervaded by corrupting influences with an animal nature geared toward survival and, hence, self-interest and so is easily led astray. The proposed doctrine thus circumvents completely the knotty problem of the transmission of original sin because nothing other than ordinary human nature is inherited.[3]

I’ve come to appreciate that such a biologically based view of sin bears a close resemblance to the traditional Roman Catholic view of original sin. According to that view, Adam and Eve in their state of innocence prior to the Fall enjoyed an extra gift of God’s grace (donum superadditum) over and above what they had simply by human nature that enabled them to live sinless lives. In defying God, they forfeited this gift of God’s grace and so found themselves incapable of mastery of their natural desires.[4] In their post-Fall condition their nature was thus deprived but not depraved, as the Protestant Reformers would have it. This now deprived nature inevitably issues in sin on the part of those who grow to normal moral awareness. I see no reason to think that this state of deprivation in infants is culpable or evil, and so there is no need to follow Catholic theology in thinking that infant baptism is necessary in order for babies who die to avoid condemnation or even attain beatitude. Man’s deprived condition is not sinful as such but is nonetheless the tinder of sin (fomes peccati). The ordinary human nature that we inherit from our parents thus does not involve any hereditary sin; but we have lost the added gift of grace that Adam and Eve once had.

Such a doctrine of original sin strikes me as very plausible, not only scientifically but also theologically. It seems appropriate to say that Adam and Eve would have needed God’s superadded grace to live wholly sinless lives. Even Hoekema, who thinks that in the pre-Fall state Adam and Eve had original righteousness and holiness, cannot resist saying, “We must acknowledge that they could not have remained standing in their moral integrity apart from the strength of the Holy Spirit who was dwelling within them.”[5] When he affirms that “In the beginning, therefore, man was not a neutral being, neither good nor bad, but a good being who was capable, with God’s help, of living a life that was totally pleasing to God,”[6] his view is no different than the Catholic view.

Admittedly, it does remain mysterious why on this view God does not provide his superadded grace to each of Adam’s descendants from conception to enable them to master their animal natures and to live sinless lives. Why must they suffer the consequences (if not the punishment) of Adam’s sin?[7] But there is no reason to think that we should be able to penetrate the providence of God in his decision to include all mankind in what Augustine called a “mass of sin” (massa peccati)—perhaps he knew that in so doing it would actually redound to a more optimal balance between saved and lost in the long run. We have no way of knowing, nor should we expect to.