Here is my brief assessment of Tony Jones’ blogposts that deny the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin. Besides the immaturity (“Watch out, Brian, the NeoReformed stormtroopers went after Scot McKnight last week, and they’ll probably come after you here!”), Tony’s posts suffer from ignorance and arrogance.
1. Ignorance: Tony reduces original sin to original guilt, overlooking that it also contains moral pollution or corruption. Tony apparently believes that everyone sins, but he doesn’t say why—is it something in our environment or something we inherited from our parents? If it is the former, then Tony cannot explain why everyone sins. If it is the latter, then despite his protests, Tony actually holds one expression of the doctrine of original sin. The Eastern Church teaches that we “automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt” (see my previous post on “original sin and the Eastern Church) and some Protestants believe that we become guilty only when we act on our sinful disposition inherited from Adam.
I don’t agree with these positions, but at least they aren’t heretical. My point is that Tony’s incomplete definition of original sin produces theological confusion. Does he really deny the doctrine of original sin, or does he only think that he does? He certainly denies original guilt—which is a problem, but does he also deny original corruption—which would be heresy? He doesn’t say.
2. Arrogance: Tony Jones (Tony Jones!) has the temerity to disagree with the Apostle Paul. He says that Romans 5 could be read in two ways—the way that Paul intended or the way that Tony prefers. He writes:
[1] If one believes that there is some kind of spiritual nature that is passed from mother (or father) to child by a biological process, as Paul likely believed, then this passage will be taken one way. [2] If, however, one does not believe that the taint of Adam’s sin is genetic but is instead an archetypal account of the human condition, then it will be taken another way.
In his post on original sin and Genesis, Tony clearly says that he opts for #2. He writes that Genesis 3 is “paradigmatic as opposed to factual” and that it does not teach that Adam and Eve “were changed at the genetic level that would infect subsequent generations.”
To reinforce that he knows that he is disagreeing with Paul’s meaning in Romans 5, Tony wrote a subsequent post entitled, “Was Paul Wrong?” Here he asks the rhetorical question, “If you, through and honest and thoroughgoing process of study and discernment, come to decide that the Apostle Paul was wrong about something in his writings, have you forsaken your claim to be an orthodox Christian?”
Interestingly, in the same post Tony says “I believe that Paul’s writings are inspired and authoritative.” If Tony means “inspired by God,” then by his own admission he is not only disagreeing with Paul but also he is taking on God.
At this point all hope of a productive, Christian conversation is lost. If Tony thinks he is free to disagree with God whenever God says something that Tony doesn’t like, then I don’t know what else to say. Unless every member of the conversation stands under the Word of God, there is no point in trying to understand it.
At least Tony is right about one thing: the original sin of Genesis 3—the sin of wanting to supplant God—is paradigmatic and archetypal. It’s present in Tony’s posts on original sin.
Mike Wittmer 
Leave a Reply