# Evangelism and Original Sin



## christianyouth (Mar 28, 2008)

When evangelizing should I explain the doctrine of Original Sin? 

Scenario A "You lie, you cheat, you rob God of his glory continually by refusing to submit to him, therefore he is completely just in condemning you"

Scenario B "At the beginning of time God created Adam and Eve, the first humans. They were meant to worship God and fellowship with God. God placed them in a garden, and in this garden he gave them only one rule, and that was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, they violated that rule, and they ate. Because of this their fellowship with God was broken, and a substance known as 'sin' entered into the world, and really messed things up. It brought about death, both spiritual and physical. It brought about suffering and disputes. In short, all the miseries that we know in this life are the result of sin. Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, all of us are born underneath God's anger and just condemnation. When we die, which is inevitable, we will go to hell and be punished for eternity. But there is a way which we can escape this condemnation. (insert Gospel message here.)


I'm very confused. Up until now, I always used Scenario A. But Scenario A does not mention Original Sin. And the thing is, all of the Gospel proclamations that I see in church history,(Turn or Burn by Spurgeon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Edwards, George Whitefield _Great Sermons of the World: Repentance_) don't mention it either. But if we are to be honest with the lost, shouldn't we speak of the imputation of Adam's sin as the cause for being condemned and not their own sin?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 28, 2008)

Why mention something that Adam did - which all unbelievers will protest as unfair if applied to them. 

Instead, there is enough actual sin to drive home the law to the sinner. 

ANyhow, some will say that we are not condemned for original sin anyhow but only for actual sins...and then, that whole issue gets brought out.

Real life actual sins in people's remembrance that they cannot deny is the best way to reason to someone that they are a sinner.


----------



## Herald (Mar 28, 2008)

Andrew,

This is a great question. Your second answer was more in line with a sermon. That is wonderful and quite appropriate from the pulpit. While I am not a huge advocate of systematic evangelism programs, the Way of the Master  does a good job of using the decalogue to overcome the objections to original sin. While you don't have to duplicate WOTM, you can effectively use the decalogue to cause an individual to recognize their sinfulness. WOTM does it this way:

Christian: Have you ever told a lie?

Sinner: Yes, of course. Everyone has.

Christian: What does that make you?

Sinner: A liar.

Christian: Have you ever take anything that doesn't belong to you?

Sinner: Yes.

Christian: What does that make you?

Sinner: A thief.

Christian: Then if we use the Ten Commandments as God's standard, by your own admission you are a lying thief. If God uses the Ten Commandments as the standard by which He will judge the world, would you be innocent or guilty?

Sinner: Guilty.

You see the progression? I have had people tell me that they have kept the Ten Commandments but after questioning them this way very few of them would be audacious enough to claim they are innocent. 

I want to be careful here. To the unregenerate sinner the doctrine of original sin is not necessary for salvation. The understanding that they have sinned and are under God's wrath is necessary. I wouldn't get hung up on a discussion of original sin as a general rule with an unbeliever. If the conversation allowed I would certainly mention it, but I would try to make sure that the individual understood they they have sinned and are in need of forgiveness.


----------



## christianyouth (Mar 28, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I want to be careful here. To the unregenerate sinner the doctrine of original sin is not necessary for salvation. The understanding that they have sinned and are under God's wrath is necessary. I wouldn't get hung up on a discussion of original sin as a general rule with an unbeliever. If the conversation allowed I would certainly mention it, but I would try to make sure that the individual understood they they have sinned and are in need of forgiveness.



Well, I don't want to deceive them. If I am telling them that they are going to hell because of their own sins, when the Bible makes it clear that they are going to hell because of Adam's sin, I may be lying. I do use the WOTM method, especially using the law to show someone their sin and then after the law work is done, to do the grace work. I just want to be honest with the lost.


----------



## Herald (Mar 28, 2008)

They *are* going to hell because of their own sin. No one goes to hell by proxy. We are not excused of our sin simply because of original sin.

The 1689 LBC speaks thus:



> 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
> ( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )
> 
> 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
> ...



Sin is certainly imputed because of Adam. The scriptures and the LBC affirm original sin and its imputation to all men, save Christ. But we are sinners because we also sin.



> Romans 3:10-11 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;



The Covenant of Works, broken by Adam, placed Adam and his posterity in perpetual sin. But it is not unscriptural to tell a person that they are a sinner because they have sinned. The scripture says so.



> Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 28, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I want to be careful here. To the unregenerate sinner the doctrine of original sin is not necessary for salvation. The understanding that they have sinned and are under God's wrath is necessary. I wouldn't get hung up on a discussion of original sin as a general rule with an unbeliever. If the conversation allowed I would certainly mention it, but I would try to make sure that the individual understood they they have sinned and are in need of forgiveness.
> ...



Andrew:

In your desire to be honest (which is a good thing) you may be clouding the issue. 

It is true theologically, that all men are accounted sinners because of Adam's transgression. It is also equally true that the unsaved are under the wrath of God because of their own personal transgressions.

The message the unsaved need to hear is they are guilty of offending a Sovereign, Righteous God. I don't believe it is dishonest to give a simple gospel presentation. It is not neccessary to give a theological dissertation on all the various aspects of each and every biblical doctrine.

I have found that the message is clearest when you keep to the basics:


> They are sinners. They stand in judgment for their sin. God sent His Son to reconcile sinners to Himself by His death on the cross. God calls sinners to repentance. Will they repent?



Certainly, I have over-simplified here for the purpose of brevity, but my point is that the basic message is what the unconverted need to hear. There is room for doctrine in our gospel presentation, of course--but all the finer points of doctrine don't save. The Holy Spirit saves, He calls those to whom we witness to faith. It is after all His work and not ours!

Give the message as clearly and simply as you can and trust the Spirit to work in the souls of your listeners.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 28, 2008)

How about the "God wants you to have your best life now!!"  

(Lots of emoticons so you will know I'm not serious. The contrast to the real gospel stands out!!)


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 29, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> When evangelizing should I explain the doctrine of Original Sin?
> 
> Scenario A "You lie, you cheat, you rob God of his glory continually by refusing to submit to him, therefore he is completely just in condemning you"
> 
> ...



I don't think you need to explain the doctrine of original sin. Bring it back to an example of everyday life...do you need to explain the details regarding cancer to a person in need of treatment. No. Just explain to them the curse of their disease and tell them where and how they can find the cure. So, explain to people that they must meet a standard of perfection as is laid out by the Law, and that it is impossible to meet such. Explain that eternal destruction is the consequence of their failure and that someone opted to be a substitute in their behalf for both their condemnation and their righteousness, if they would choose to entrust themselves to him. Do not get bogged down within semantics or theology. Put it in terms suited to the individual, which the example of Christ shows. 

Blessings!


----------



## christianyouth (Mar 29, 2008)

Thanks for the replies all. 

I see that bringing up original sin is pointless, just as bringing up Limited atonement, total depravity, etc would be. Thanks for balancing me out.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 29, 2008)

Sometimes listeners ask questions that cannot be answered without explaining some of these deeper issues. If you explain to someone that all of humanity is sinful, you may need eventually to explain that all sinned in Adam and fell with him. 

Some time ago I asked a similar question about what to do when an evangelistic discussion turns to a discussion of Calvinism. The fact of the matter is that Calvinistic issues will come up if Calvinism is biblical. Jesus did not shy away from discussing matters that were "hard to accept." When things got "difficult" for the hearers, they often left. So be it. We are not to be concerned with numbers. This is why the seeker sensitive movement exists. Such a passage has become one of my favorite in the bible, namely the one where he then asks the disciples whether they, too, are going to leave, and they reply, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." 

So I guess I'm saying that the more difficult matters of Christianity are not all _necessary_ in a presentation of the Gospel, but if they come up, don't be afraid to share them and defend them unashamedly.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, I think it is key that we do not try to cover up any truth and we answer any questions that come up. 

But I think what is being advocated here is a matter of strategy, and what to give someone first to think about. We should work from the clear and indisputable to the less clear and harder to explain issues. I think the Latin guy above has it right when he sums it up: _the more difficult matters of Christianity are not all necessary in a presentation of the Gospel, but if they come up, don't be afraid to share them and defend them unashamedly._


----------



## Davidius (Mar 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I think it is key that we do not try to cover up any truth and we answer any questions that come up.
> 
> But I think what is being advocated here is a matter of strategy, and what to give someone first to think about. We should work from the clear and indisputable to the less clear and harder to explain issues. I think the Latin guy above has it right when he sums it up: _the more difficult matters of Christianity are not all necessary in a presentation of the Gospel, but if they come up, don't be afraid to share them and defend them unashamedly._



Gratias tibi ago.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 29, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I think it is key that we do not try to cover up any truth and we answer any questions that come up.
> ...




Licet certe! Fac si vis!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 29, 2008)

All this Latin makes me want to tell you guys:

_Fac ut vivas!_


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 29, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Sometimes listeners ask questions that cannot be answered without explaining some of these deeper issues. If you explain to someone that all of humanity is sinful, you may need eventually to explain that all sinned in Adam and fell with him.
> 
> Some time ago I asked a similar question about what to do when an evangelistic discussion turns to a discussion of Calvinism. The fact of the matter is that Calvinistic issues will come up if Calvinism is biblical. Jesus did not shy away from discussing matters that were "hard to accept." When things got "difficult" for the hearers, they often left. So be it. We are not to be concerned with numbers. This is why the seeker sensitive movement exists. Such a passage has become one of my favorite in the bible, namely the one where he then asks the disciples whether they, too, are going to leave, and they reply, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
> 
> So I guess I'm saying that the more difficult matters of Christianity are not all _necessary_ in a presentation of the Gospel, but if they come up, don't be afraid to share them and defend them unashamedly.



I agree, we are to meet people according to their need. There is no set formula for how to approach people in general. To the Jews we become Jews...we become all things to all men. And so, we present things accordingly. All the depths of theology are not necessary for all. For some, they are a burden and a restriction. For others, they are the key that opens the door. Wisdom and discernment are necessary for when to apply what. May God bless us all to have such in regard to the needs of his sheep.

Blessings!


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2008)

No original sin -- no gospel. His name is Jesus, because He saves His people from their sins. If people do not understand original sin then they don't understand from what they need to be delivered, and therefore cannot properly know Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent.


----------



## Herald (Mar 30, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> No original sin -- no gospel. His name is Jesus, because He saves His people from their sins. If people do not understand original sin then they don't understand from what they need to be delivered, and therefore cannot properly know Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent.



Matthew, are you saying that a person cannot be convicted by the Holy Spirit, through the word of God, because of _their_ sin? Must a person hear about the sin of Adam in order to understand their own sinfulness and the salvation Christ has purchased for all those who believe in Him by faith?


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Matthew, are you saying that a person cannot be convicted by the Holy Spirit, through the word of God, because of _their_ sin? Must a person hear about the sin of Adam in order to understand their own sinfulness and the salvation Christ has purchased for all those who believe in Him by faith?



As explained recently on another thread, "original sin" technically refers to the corruption of man's whole nature, and not to the first sin of Adam or its imputation. The sinner must be convicted of his total depravity and inability, otherwise the Saviour is reduced to a mere helper.

Experience shows that the universal nature of sin cannot really be explained except on the grounds of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind. So it is best to follow the wisdom of our fathers, and present the story of the fall and redemption in its biblical balance.

This recurring idea, that we can reduce the gospel to a bare minimum knowledge necessary for salvation, is not wise. All truth is related in some way. If a person is deficient in one area, and he consistently acts on what he knows, then that deficiency will show itself in the development of the person's thought and actions. A builder does not ask what is the bare mimimum he can get away with in the laying of a foundation. He asks what is necessary in order that the building erected on the foundation might be firm and secure. A preacher needs to be "a wise masterbuilder" (1 Cor. 3:10), and seek to lay a solid foundation in the preaching of Jesus Christ which will bear the weight of all future teaching which builds on this foundation.


----------



## Herald (Mar 30, 2008)

Matthew,



> The sinner must be convicted of his total depravity and inability, otherwise the Saviour is reduced to a mere helper.



Agreed, without equivocation. 



> Experience shows that the universal nature of sin cannot really be explained except on the grounds of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all mankind. So it is best to follow the wisdom of our fathers, and present the story of the fall and redemption in its biblical balance.



I don't disagree. While it is best to present the entire picture of mans depravity and inability, not every message is going to present that fact in totality. This morning our pastor preached from 1 John 4. The gospel was preached although the text did not call for an explanation of Adam's fall.



> This recurring idea, that we can reduce the gospel to a bare minimum knowledge necessary for salvation, is not wise.



Matthew, please do not think that is what I am suggesting. I am not advocating "bare minimum knowledge." I am suggesting that an individual can be convinced of their "total depravity and inability" by the conviction of the Spirit, through the word preached even if Adam's fall is not mentioned.


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2008)

Bill, please consider my thoughts on bare minimalism as a challenge to this recurring thought on the PB, and not to you personally; I know you are conscientious for the whole counsel of God. I imagine your Pastor preaches on much more than 1 John 4, and feels free to concentrate on one point in one sermon in the knowledge that he has dealt with other points in previous sermons. It would only be surprising to me if you told me he never teaches about the fall in Adam.


----------

