LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
RESEARCH PAPER:
ORIGINAL SIN: A CRITIQUE OF THE VIEWS OF PELAGIANISM, CALVINISM, AND ARMINIANISM
SUBMITTED TO DR. SIMON GONCHARENKO
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE CHHI525
BY
DARNELL BRANTLEY (L22325090)
JULY 7, 2013
1
Thesis
This paper will theologically analyze the original sin theories of Pelagianism, Calvinism,
and Arminianism, in order to show that Arminianism is the most biblical view.
Contents
Introduction… ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Federal and Seminal Headship… ........................................................................................................ 2
Pelagianism and Original Sin…........................................................................................................... 3
Critique of Pelagianism ........................................................................................................................ 4
Calvinism and Original Sin .................................................................................................................. 5
Critique of Calvinism ........................................................................................................................... 6
Arminianism and Original Sin… .........................................................................................................6
Critique of Arminianism ...................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion… ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 9
2
RESEARCH PAPER: ORIGINAL SIN: A CRITIQUE OF THE VIEWS
Original sin has been debated throughout history. Original sin refers to humanity's state
of sin resulting from the Fall of Man (Gen. 3). This condition has been characterized in many
ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet
without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature," to something as drastic as total depravity or
automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. A person’s view of original sin is
important because it is influential in shaping the rest of their theology. This paper will
theologically analyze the original sin theories of Pelagianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism, in
order to show that Arminianism is the most biblical view.
Federal and Seminal Headship
Is all mankind affected by sin in the sense that they are inevitably involved in Adam’s
transgression? The majority of Christendom would argue “Yes! The original sin of Adam and
the guilt of sin in some inevitable way passed upon the entire human race.”1 If this is the case,
the next logical question would be, “How is Adam’s sin imputed to mankind?”
There are two primary views of how Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity. Federal
headship is the first view. Federal headship holds that Adam, as the first man, represented all
mankind. As the natural head of the race, Adam stood in a federal relationship to all posterity.2
As such, he cast the sin vote for mankind, by proxy, when he disobeyed God and partook of the
forbidden fruit.
1 James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1986)
204.
2 Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 1104.
3
Seminal headship is the second view. Seminal headship holds that all men were in Adam
when he disobeyed God and partook of the forbidden fruit. This view believes that Adam’s
genetics contained the information for all men, in essence making mankind accomplices in
Adam’s sin. Adam’s Fall imputed sin to his posterity through his gene code, much like a mother
can pass a disease to her child through birth.
Pelagianism and Original Sin
Pelagius, British by birth, was a well-disciplined student of Greek theology. Pelagius was
commonly believed to be a monk. Late in the fourth century, Pelagius became an important
teacher in Rome.
While in Rome, Pelagius studied the works of Augustine and would eventually go on to
rival Augustine’s theology on predestination and original sin. Both Pelagius and Augustine
agreed that Adam was created morally neutral and freely chose to sin. But Pelagius went on to
maintain that Adam’s fall hurt only himself and no one else. Pelagius subscribed to a creationist
view of the origin of the soul. He believed that God individually created each person’s soul, and
therefore a person’s soul was not tainted by the Fall.3 Pelagius neither believed children are born
with original sin, nor are they born under the condemnation of Adam’s sin. Pelagius also
vehemently rejected Augustine’s theory of predestination.
Pelagius’ theory was built on the foundation of freedom of the will. Pelagius strongly
believed that man is free to obey the commandments of God because man is not helplessly bound
by sin. “Pelagius held that one could raise oneself by one’s own efforts toward God, and
3 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998) 649.
4
therefore grace is the reward for human virtue.”4 According to Pelagius’ line of thought, man
even has the ability, theoretically speaking, to live a sinless life. Pelagius’ slogan was,
“Whatever I ought to do, I can do.”
A pupil of Pelagius, named Coelestius, made the following assertions concerning
Pelagianism:
1) Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned. 2) Adam’s fall
injured himself alone, not the human race. 3) Children come into the world in the same condition
in which Adam was born before the Fall. 4) The human race neither dies because of Adam’s fall,
nor rises again because of Christ’s resurrection. 5) Unbaptized children, as well as others are
saved. 6) The law, as well as the Gospel, leads to the kingdom of heaven. 7) Even before Christ’s
death there were sinless men.5
Critique of Pelagianism
Much of Pelegianism’s view of original sin runs contrary to Scripture. For one, the
effects and acts of sin are not isolated, but are universally present in every man. 1 Kings 8:46
says, “There is no man that sinneth not.” Ecclesiastes 7:20 states, “There is not a just man upon
earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Romans 3:19 declares, “The whole world may become
guilty before God.” Roman 3:23 clearly proclaims, “For all have sinned and come short of the
glory of God.”
Believers in every age and in every part of the world can attest to the pragmatic evidence
of sin. Recognizing his own inherent sinful nature prompted Isaiah to cry out, “Woe is me! For I
am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
lips” (Isa. 6:5). David frequently refers to his sinful actions in his many Penitential Psalms (25,
4Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2001) 1105.
5 Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines that Separate
Christians. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998) 156.
5
32, 38, 39, 51).6 Paul even recognizes the powerful influence of sin within his own life, claiming
he was the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).
Also, if “Adam’s sin has no direct effect upon every human being, there is no need for a
special working of God’s grace within the heart of each individual.”7 Rather the grace of God is
simply something present everywhere and at every moment.”
Calvinism and Original Sin
John Calvin, often regarded as the “the systematizer of the Reformation” was a second-
generation Protestant Reformer of the sixteenth century who brought together biblical doctrine
systematically, in a way that no other Reformer before him had done.8 The formal principle and
source of Calvin’s theological system is embodied in the latin phrase sola Scriptura (Scripture
only).9 Calvin rejected the medieval fourfold interpretation that allowed allegorizing,
spiritualizing, and moralizing, insisting that the literal meaning of the words was to be taken in
their historical context.
Calvinists have spent a lot of time addressing the subject of original sin. Calvinists
generally interpret Genesis 5:12-19 literally. The Synod of Dort adopted the now famous five
points of Calvinism in 1618-1619. The five points are often remembered by the acrostic TULIP
– total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance
6 Elmer Towns. Theology for Today. (Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008) 502.
7 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998) 649.
8 Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2001) 201.
9 Ibid.
6
of the saints. The Calvinist view of “total depravity” directly deals with the issue of original sin.
According to Calvinism, “total depravity” simply means that mankind inherits the guilt of
Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12) and is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The corruption of sin
extends to man’s mind as well as man’s will; consequently, no one seeks God. Because man is
dead in trespasses and sins, God must regenerate man and even grant man the faith to believe.
As such, Calvinists also believe the penalty for Adam’s sin is death; which has been passed down
to all mankind. The Calvinist viewpoint holds that God imputes both a corrupted nature and
guilt in the sense of culpability.
Critique of Calvinism
A strength of Calvinism is that it makes the intention of God to save a given number
certain. It insists that all men are spiritually dead, so if some are quickened, it must be because
of a difference in God, not man. With that being said, the same strength can also be seen as a
weakness of Calvinism.
How can Calvinists harmonize or reconcile “God elected some” with “God desires all to
be saved?” Paul writes in 1 Tim. 2:4, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth.” Paul also writes in 2 Pet. 3:9 that God is patient, “not wishing for any
to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
Arminianism and Original Sin
James Arminius was a theologian and Dutch reformed pastor. Arminius did not agree
with Pelagianism. Concerning original sin, Arminius believed that the will of natural fallen man
is not only maimed and wounded, but that it is unable to fulfill God’s command without divine
help, or as Arminians call it – prevenient grace.10
10 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998) 650.
7
In contrast to the Calvinist view of total depravity, Arminianism teaches that man is to
some degree depraved, but that he receives enough grace to counteract the effects of depravity.
The scales are therefore evenly balanced. So, man is capable of making his choice after all. This
is important because where Calvinism says man is dead, Arminianism says man is sick. If man
is only sick, common grace might help him to recover by enabling him to make a right choice.
But if man is spiritually dead, he needs the Giver of Life to make the choice for him.
The Arminian theory agrees with Calvinism, that God imputes a corrupted nature, but
disagrees that God imputes guilt in the sense of culpability.
Critique of Arminianism
The strength of Arminianism is that it makes a sincere attempt to preserve free will by
making salvation dependent on man’s choice and not God’s choice. Arminianism believes that
God decrees to save all who believe and persevere in the faith; all others are left in sin and
damnation. This belief stands in stark contrast with Calvinism. Calvinism believes in
“unconditional election.”
Conclusion
The topic of original sin has been widely addressed and disputed throughout history. The
federal and seminal headship views are commonly used to explain how Adam’s sin was imputed
to mankind. Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism are the most common theories regarding
original sin. I personally believe that both Arminianism and Calvinism have merit and Scriptural
support. Arminianism gives the best explanation of original sin, though. I strongly believe God
imputes a corrupted nature, but not guilt in the sense of culpability.
Down through the ages this question has been raised: Is man a sinner because he sins, or
does he sin because he is a sinner? Man’s sin nature is passed genetically. Man, who is born of
8
a woman, is destined to sin willfully because he is born with the inherent nature to sin. Sin,
therefore, becomes inevitable. The genetic transfer of the sin nature demanded that the Messiah
be born without the inherent original sin. Consequently, Christ is born of a virgin, which
prevents Him from inheriting the stain of a sin nature. Furthermore, the work of Jesus Christ, in
His atonement, is seen in striking contrast to the inheritance of sin (Rom. 5:17-21). So, to
answer the question, man sins because he is a sinner; it is part of man’s nature. Thankfully, the
penalty for sin was paid on the cross of Christ! The righteousness man inherits when he is born
again is as complete as the sin he inherited at birth. According to Romans 4:11, righteousness is
also imputed!
Adam’s disobedience brought damnation into the world, but Jesus’ obedience brought
salvation into the world. Romans 5:19 sums it up well: “For as by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous!”
9
Bibliography
Andrews, James A. "On Original Sin and the Scandalous Nature of Existence." Journal of
Theological Interpretation 5, no. 2 (2011): 231-250.
Baer, Jonathan R. "Original Sin in America: Says Who?." Fides Et Historia 37, no. 2-1 (2006):
211-215.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: Inter
Varsity Press, 1986.
Buonaiuti, Ernesto, and George La Piana. "The Genesis of St. Augustine's Idea of Original
Sin." Harvard Theological Review 10, no. 2 (1917): 159-175.
Caner, Ergun, Hinson, Ed. Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene: Harvest House
Publishers, 2008.
Denlinger, Aaron Clay. "Calvin's Understanding of Adam's Relationship to His Posterity:
Recent Assertions of the Reformer's "Federalism" Evaluated." Calvin Theological
Journal 44, no. 2 (2009): 226-250.
Dubarle, Andre-Marie. “Original Sin in Genesis” Cross Currents 8 no 4 (Fall 1958): 345-362.
Duffy, Stephen J. "Genes, Original Sin and the Human Proclivity to Evil." Horizons 32,
no. 2 (2005): 210-234.
Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Gieschen, Charles A. “Original Sin in the New Testament” Concordia Journal 31, no 4 (October
1, 2005): 359-375.
Nassif, Bradley L. "Toward a "Catholic" Understanding of St Augustine's View of
10
Original Sin." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39, no. 4 (1984): 287-299.
Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today. Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008.
Weaver, David. "Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and its Implications
for the Doctrine of Original Sin: 5th-12th centuries." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly
29, no. 3 (1985): 231-257.
