4 5 8C H A P T E R 2 1 ■ R e l i g i o u s R e a s o n i n gOriginal sin is also less widely accepted now than when my church was
founded. I find many Christians who reject original sin. I sympathize with
them. Their hearts are in the right place, certainly. But, Christians can reject
original sin only at the cost of a substantial reinterpretation of their scrip-
tures and traditions.*
Consistently with the doctrine of original sin, it is common among
Christians to believe that if we are justified, it is by faith in Jesus.** Since
we are all sinners, we cannot earn salvation by our works. But we can be
forgiven and treated as if we were righteous. The mark of our having been
forgiven is that God, by an act of grace, gives us faith.
This doctrine has implications I find appalling. It implies that those
among us who lack faith in Jesus have not received grace, have not been
forgiven, and will, if we continue in that state, go to Hell. So the doctrine of* As Article IX [of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church] puts it: “Original
sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault
and corruption of the Nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature
inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every
person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of
nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh... is not
subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and
are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature
of sin.” The principal scriptural authority for this doctrine is found in the letters of St. Paul
(the source of so much that is appalling in traditional Christian teaching), notably in Romans
3:9–20, 5:12–21, and 1 Corinthians 15:20–22. I had thought from something Dr. Craig said later
in our debate that this doctrine might be rejected in the Wesleyan tradition to which he adheres.
But the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (available at http://archives.umc.org/
interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649) seem very similar.
** This was certainly the doctrine of my church. See Article XIII: “We are accounted righteous
before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our
own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome
Doctrine, and very full of comfort.. .” Scriptural support for this doctrine may be found in
Mark 16:16; John 3:16–18, 5:24, 14:6–7; Acts 4:12; Romans 3:9–26, 5:12–21; Ephesians 2.12; I John
2:22–23, 4.3; II John 9. It should, however, be acknowledged that this doctrine seems to be much
more common in the works of Paul, and in the fourth gospel, than it is in the synoptic gospels,
which tend to suggest that obedience to the commandments, supplemented only by selling all
you have and giving it to the poor, is sufficient for salvation. See the story told (with some
variations) in Matthew 19:16–22, Mark 10:17–22, Luke 18:18–23. The gospel of John is generally
dated late enough that its account of Jesus’s teaching might have been influenced by the letters
of Paul. (On the dating of Paul’s letters and John’s gospel, see Raymond Brown’s Introduction to
the New Testament, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.) We should concede also that
the exceptional passage from Mark comes from the “longer ending of Mark,” which is not found
in the earliest manuscripts. (See The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Bruce Metzger and Roland
Murphy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.) I would not, of course, be thought to suggest
that any member of the early Christian Church might have tampered with the text of Mark,
to bring it into line with Pauline theology. To do that would be to embrace the kind of radical
skepticism for which Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2007) has been
so widely and justly censured. Still, these textual data are puzzling. A Christian who took his
scriptures seriously might think they require some explanation.97364_ch21_ptg01_449-464.indd 458 15/11/13 12:22 3M
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.