THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

I listened to a podcast today while doing yardwork. It was a panel of 3 Calvinists and they all agreed that what I intend to preach tomorrow morning is heresy:

I think it best to reject the doctrine of original sin as being unbiblical.

If you're not familiar, original sin teaches

• ·         After Adam’s fall, humans now have a “sin nature” – from the moment of conception.
• ·         We are born into this world sinful and hating God.
• ·         We are born condemned, bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin.
• ·         Until Christ enters a person, he can do nothing BUT sin.

These three men would not only declare me heretical, but heretical in the first degree.

The saying goes that "there are heresies and then there are damnable heresies".

They agreed that rejecting original sin is a damnable heresy because it then interferes with other key doctrines at the heart of the gospel.

Their example? Penal substitutionary atonement!

So that's OK by me, because I also reject PSA as it is typically formulated. 

(I know there are prooftexts for both original sin and penal substitutionary atonement, but I consider them quite weak. This post may come across as flippant, but I have listened to both sides on these two issues and if you and I sat down over a cup of coffee, I feel like I could defend my positions well on both.) 

Although I reject the notion that humans bear Adam's guilt and can do nothing but sin, I do believe that all who live beyond the age of accountability end up sinning. And whether we sin a lot or a little, we all still need a Savior to be reconciled to God.

I guess it's important to remember that heresy is in the eye of the beholder.