The doctrine of “inherited sin,” also called “original sin” or “ancestral sin,” and the doctrine of “total hereditary depravity,” also called “absolute inability,” are similar in that they both have to do with the effects of the sin of our first ancestor Adam on the rest of mankind. Both doctrines teach, that as a result of Adam’s fall back in the beginning, every human being inherits a corrupted nature and the guilt of Adam’s sin, and that every human being is born into the world an enemy of God and lost. (Though some would disagree with the last statement, believing that infants and little children though inheriting sin, are covered by God’s grace until an age when they are able to respond in faith and repentance to the gospel.)

From what I understand, total depravity just takes the original sin doctrine to an extreme. Total depravity teaches that the nature we have inherited from Adam is totally depraved, that we come into this world completely corrupt, evil and incapable of any good. It teaches that we don’t have the ability to do any good thing or even think good thoughts. When unbelievers do what appear to be good deeds, like acts of kindness and generosity, they’re not really good, because they are done out of impure motives. Really self-interest is behind them. They’re selfish deeds in disguise. The doctrine of total depravity, seems to me, basically denies that people have free will.

“Original sin” does not necessarily deny that we have free will. But both doctrines teach that from the very moment we come into this world we are guilty before God.

These doctrines result in other doctrines and practices. For example, the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and other denominations baptize infants. Most of them understand baptism in the name of Jesus to be necessary for salvation. And since they believe babies have inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin and need salvation, then they believe babies need to be baptized. But that’s also led to changing the mode of baptism.  The word “baptism” in our English Bibles is simply an Anglicization of a Greek word. It is NOT a translation. It’s just an Englishy way of saying the Greek word baptisma. The verb in Greek is baptizo. The terms mean immersion and immerse, dip, plunge. But you don’t really want to immerse an infant, and so there has developed the practice of sprinkling and pouring instead of immersing.

An example of what the total depravity doctrine leads to, is the doctrine of unconditional election, which is the idea that God unconditionally elects some people to be saved and the rest not to be, that who God chooses has nothing to do with the hearts and choices of people. This is the logical deduction if we are all born totally depraved, incapable of good, without free will. If such is the case then salvation must be ALL God’s choice and doing; God just picks some to be saved and He makes them believe and repent. It has nothing to do with any decisions that people make themselves.

Well, there are three matters I’d like to talk about in this study that I believe will demonstrate these doctrines to be misunderstandings – (1) What Scripture tells us about the nature of God, (2) what Scripture tells us about the nature and condition of babies and little kids, and (3) the proof texts used to support these doctrines.

What Scripture tells us about the nature of God

The best chapter in Scripture I know for this is Ezekiel 18. My lengthier study of it can be found at this link – Individual Responsibility, Ezekiel 18. The prophet Ezekiel is preaching to the people of Judah who have been devastated by the Babylonians and many of them exiled to Babylon. And in this chapter he addresses the idea the people had that they were being punished by God for sins they did not commit. They felt like they had not done anything to deserve the captivity they were in, that they were being punished for the sins of their forefathers. They even had a proverb to illustrate how they thought God was dealing with them. The proverb went like this, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” Or they could have said, “Parents eat the lemons, but the children’s mouths pucker.” They were saying the children, though innocent, are punished for the sins of their fathers. That’s what they thought of God. It’s similar thinking, seems to me, to think that God punishes us for the sin of our ancestor Adam. Well, Ezekiel 18 is God’s response to this thinking through His prophet. Ezekiel 18:3, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.“ It was an affront to God’s justice to say that God would punish them for stuff they were not guilty of. I want to encourage you to read the whole chapter carefully. It’s very straightforward. Verses 4-19 make it very clear that we inherit neither the righteousness nor guilt of our ancestors. God judges us according to what we ourselves have done, not according to what others have done. Verse 20 summarizes, “The soul who sins [the tense of the verb in Hebrew is “keeps on sinning” (the one who doesn’t repent)] shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

The latter part of Ezekiel 18 makes something else about God’s nature very plain, and it’s that God desires every human being to come to repentance and be saved. Listen to how the chapter ends, Ezekiel 18:32, “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.” This is something about God’s nature that is repeated over and over in the Bible. I Timothy 2:4, “[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” II Peter 3:9 “the Lord is… not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Think of the parables Jesus told in Luke 15 about the lost sheep and the lost coin and the lost son (the prodigal son) to illustrate God’s heart toward lost sinners and how He rejoices when one comes to repentance and salvation. Well, how can that aspect of God’s nature possibly be reconciled with the doctrines of total hereditary depravity and unconditional election? If we are born totally depraved and the only way we believe the truth and repent is by God making us do that, then wouldn’t God do that for everybody, because He says so plainly and often in His word that He wants everybody to repent and be saved? If us repenting is all up to God, and He wants us all to, why doesn’t He make us all repent? It’s more reasonable to me to say the reason not all repent, though God wants all to, is because God leaves the choice up to us. We have free will and God allows us to exercise it.

In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to transfer the guilt of the people’s sin in worshiping a golden calf to himself that they might not be held responsible. Moses says, “please blot me out of your book that you have written.” God’s answer to Moses was, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.” God would not allow Moses to take the guilt of others’ sin even though he asked for it. The only one God would allow to take on the guilt and punishment of others’ sin was Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. So again it seems very inconsistent with what the Bible tells us about the nature of God to say that He’s going to condemn people for the sin of Adam.

Something else about God’s nature – I John 1:5, “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” Meaning there is no evil in God. James 1:17, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” In other words, God only gives good gifts. He doesn’t vary or shift, and sometimes give evil gifts. Now, our spirits inside our bodies, the human spirit, the soul in our bodies, the Bible tells us comes from God. Zechariah 12:1 says God “forms the spirit of man within him.” Ecclesiastes 12:7, referring to what happens when we die physically, “the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.” Hebrews 12:9 calls Him “the Father of spirits”. If our spirits are from God and God is entirely good and only gives good things, how could we say that He gives us totally depraved spirits? Does the God in whom there is no darkness at all, with whom there is no shifting shadow, produce totally depraved, completely corrupt spirits?

What Scripture tells us about the nature and condition of babies and little kids

Psalm 106:37-38. This Psalm is telling some unflattering history of the people of Israel. These verses are talking about how the people became so bad that they were even sacrificing their little children to pagan gods. Notice how that practice is described: “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan…” Killing little children is shedding innocent blood. It sounds to me like we are to see little children as innocent.

I Corinthians 14:20, “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” So Paul says there is one way not to be like children and infants. And there is another way to be like them. Do not be like them in your thinking. Do not be childish in your thinking. But be like infants in relation to evil. Well, that would be a strange statement for Paul to make, seems to me, if he thought babies were totally depraved, evil and enemies of God. Sounds to me like Paul viewed infants as innocent, as having nothing to do with evil.

Solomon viewed human beings as beginning life upright. Ecclesiastes 7:29, “Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes.”

Jesus made several statements about little children that I find very hard to reconcile with the doctrine of inherited sin and especially the doctrine of total depravity.

• Matthew 18:3-4, He said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Adults must become like children in a sense if they wish to be saved! How could little children then be totally depraved?
• Matthew 18:10, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Now, what did Jesus mean by “little ones”? Did He mean it literally, actual little children? Or did He mean disciples who have the humble spirit of a little child? Maybe a better question is, why wasn’t Jesus more clear about it? I think because His statement applies equally to little children and disciples who share their humble spirit. In heaven “little ones” are highly esteemed and so they should be also on earth.
• Matthew 19, “13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” So Jesus highly elevated little children. And you never find Jesus saying anything negative about them.

Several Scriptures tell us that until a certain point of development, little children do not understand good and evil.

• Deuteronomy 1:39, “And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there.”
• Isaiah 7:14-16, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”
• Now, when thinking of when children have reached an age where they know good and evil, we should be careful not to confuse knowledge of disobedience and obedience to parents with knowledge of good and evil. Very early children “start to understand the difference between being obedient and disobedient—being good or naughty. But that understanding is different from being aware that they are sinful, [defying and resisting God]… A general sense of guilt and conviction of sin only starts to develop in the pre-adolescent years. When a child has done something wrong, the uncomfortable feeling inside is that of fear rather than guilt. A child is afraid of being found out because of the unpleasant consequences that follow. However, after the matter is dealt with, there is no lingering feeling of guilt, and all is well again.” (http://www.truthforkids.com/age-of-accountability/#.W5llauhKi00).

During this early stage of life where little ones do not understand good and evil they are not counted as sinners before God. I find the book of Romans especially, as well as other Scriptures, saying that a person is not charged with sin for an act until the person has some understanding that the act is wrong.

• Romans 4:15, “… where there is no law there is no transgression.” Romans 5:13 says, “sin is not counted where there is no law.” No law, no sin. Now, that doesn’t mean without a written out law from God, there’s no sin. Romans 2:14-15 explains that Gentiles, who did not have a written out law from God, still had law; it was written on their hearts. That inner understanding of good and evil, that sense of moral obligation, that was their law, and when they violated that, they sinned. But little children don’t have that yet, thus they don’t have sin.
• In Romans 1:16-32, Paul explains why the Gentiles are guilty and deserving the wrath of God. It’s because “although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…” And “though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things [envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hating God, being insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful] deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
• Romans 5:20 refers to how the giving of the Law of Moses increased the amount the Israelites were sinning. Why did giving the Law increase the sinning? Because “through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). Until one realizes a deed is wrong he doesn’t sin by doing it. The Law made the Israelites aware of many more things they were doing that were wrong, yet they continued to do them though they knew better now, so sin was increased through the giving of the Law. Paul gives an example in Romans 7:7-8. He didn’t know coveting his neighbor’s stuff was wrong until the Law told him. Then he began sinning every time he coveted.
• James 4:17, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” Why not just say “whoever fails to do the right thing is sinning”? Why throw in that phrase, “who knows the right thing to do”? I think because it’s crucial to the equation. It’s not just failure to do that right thing that is sin. It’s knowledge of the right thing, plus the failure to do it that equals sin.

Romans 7:9 confirms to me that there comes a point in our lives where we become accountable and actually commit sin ourselves and that’s when we die spiritually and become in need of salvation. We are not born guilty and enemies of God. We are born sinless and safe with God. Romans 7:9, “I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died”.

Clearly, Paul is not talking about physical life and physical death. He is not saying that he was once alive and then died physically. He is talking about spiritual life and death. Spiritual life is being in a right relationship with God. Spiritual death is not being in a right relationship with God. Paul says he was once alive spiritually, in a right relationship with God, apart from the law. When was Paul apart from the law? I think it has to be when he was a little boy. When he was a little boy he was apart from law in that he had no understanding of right and wrong. “But when the commandment came,” in other words, when he became what Jews today call a bar mitzvah (“a son of the commandment”), when right and wrong came into his understanding, then sin came alive in his life and he died spiritually.

Ephesians 2:1, “You were dead in your trespasses and sins”, not Adam’s. (The pronoun “your” is not in the KJV, because it is based on the Textus Receptus. But the oldest, best and majority of Greek manuscripts have it. It’s presence in the text is also supported by the early church writings.)

Isaiah 59:1-2, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear. 2 But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” Not Adam’s iniquity and sin.

Isaiah 53:6, “All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way“. Everybody has gone astray. We are not born astray. We go astray, which implies that we start off okay.

Genesis 8:21, “The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.” Man’s heart becomes evil in his youth, not from birth. In our youth we go astray. But we are not born astray.

II Samuel 12:23 suggests that, at least in David’s view, babies and little children who die are in a good place in the afterlife. While David’s infant son by Bathsheba was fatally ill, David fasted and prayed that God might heal him. When the child died, David arose and ate. David explained his actions saying, “But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Sounds like David believed that in the afterlife he would be reunited with his infant son who died. And David was told by Nathan the prophet that his sin was forgiven (II Samuel 12:13). I don’t think David was expecting to be in a bad place in the hereafter.

Proof Texts for “Inherited Sin” and “Total Depravity”

Let’s look at two passages in the Psalms which are some of the most commonly used passages to teach these doctrines.

Psalms 51:5; 58:3

Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.”

Taken literally those verses do sound like from the womb people are sinners. But let’s notice another passage real quick. Job 31:16-18, Job is talking about how he has lead a righteous life and not neglected his benevolent responsibilities. “If I have withheld anything that the poor desired, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail, 17 or have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it 18 (for from my youth the fatherless grew up with me as with a father, and from my mother’s womb I guided the widow),“. Wow! Sounds like from the womb Job was taking care of widows! (See also – Psalm 22:9-10).

The passages from Psalm 51 and 58, just like the Job passage, are employing the figure of speech we call hyperbole, which is an exaggeration of the facts to emphasize a truth. The Bible uses this figure of speech often, especially in the poetic sections like the Psalms and the book of Job. Psalm 6:6, for instance, “I am weary with my sighing; Every night I make my bed swim, I dissolve my couch with my tears.” Clearly hyperbole. Why take Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 as literal, but not Job 31:18?

Also Psalm 58:3, at least according to most translations, involves an impossibility if taken literally.  The NIV has, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” Really, from the womb babies speak lies? The NKJV has, “They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” ESV, “they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” ASV, “they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Well, babies do not literally come forth from the womb speaking lies. This is clearly employing hyperbole.

Also, one of the primary rules of Biblical interpretation is “The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another.” We saw earlier in this study the Bible calls babies innocent. And Jesus presents little children as examples of greatness and tells us to be like them. They can’t be evil or totally depraved. And Romans 7:9, apparently before one understands right and wrong, they are sinless and spiritually alive.

In Psalm 51 David is simply using hyperbole to emphasize the fact that he has sinned much in his life. Psalm 58 employs hyperbole to emphasize how sinful the lives of the wicked people have been that are in view.

Another commonly used passage –

Exodus 34:7

Exodus 34:7, “[God] visits the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

This is not saying God punishes children and grandchildren for sins that only their fathers and grandfathers were guilty of. Remember Ezekiel 18:20; God outright says He will not do that. Sometimes when God made this statement about visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children He added a clarifier to it (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9).  He said, “I will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” In other words, it’s not that God will punish children and grandchildren for things they were not guilty of.  It is that God will punish children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren if they follow the ungodliness of their fathers and grandfathers. He will not excuse sinfulness just because it is the family tradition, just because it’s the example they grew up with. God will punish sinfulness in each generation that picks it up.

There’s also this statement in the Law, Deuteronomy 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Ephesians 2:3

Ephesians 2:3, “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Many center in on that expression “by nature” and say that means we are born children of wrath. It is an inherited condition. But a couple aspects of the Greek text make that unlikely.

First, the verb in the expression “were… children of wrath” is in what’s called the middle voice in the Greek text, which suggests “the subject’s personal involvement in the action of the verb. The language therefore stresses that the sinful condition of the Ephesians had been their individual responsibility.” (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/43-are-infants-by-nature-children-of-wrath) If it were a passive voice it would indicate they were made this way. But the middle voice implies that their sinful predicament was their own doing. The verb is also in the imperfect tense which means ongoing action in the past. It might be translated “were making ourselves… children of wrath.”

Second, the Greek term for “nature” (phusis) does not necessarily mean “by birth.” The word can refer to what a man is involuntarily because of his birth, or it may refer to what a man has become voluntarily through habitual choice. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon of the New Testament says this word can denote “a mode of feeling or acting which by long habit has become nature.” In our vernacular today we might call that second nature, when somebody has done something so many times that it has just become automatic or they’ve become very adept at it and it is easy for them, we say “That’s his second nature.” Hugo McCord’s translation renders it “by custom”. The sense of the statement is “by what we’d become through habitual choice we made ourselves children of wrath”.

Romans 5:12-21

Key verses from Romans 5 concerning our subject are verses 12,18,19. Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned – ” This is used to say that spiritual death, separation from God, has spread to every human being because of Adam’s sin.

Romans 5:18-19, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” This is used to say that every human being without exception is counted by God as a sinner and thus eternally condemned before they make any choice themselves to sin.

But several things in the text and surrounding context and early church writings should steer us away from that interpretation.

First of all, it would contradict what Paul says later in the same book at Romans 7:9, which we looked at before, as well as what the rest of Scripture tells us about the nature of God and the nature and condition of little ones.

Second, notice how he begins Romans 5:12, “Therefore just as…” If in a conversation or teaching I say “just as”, that suggests that I’m about to make a comparison with something you are familiar with. For an example, if I say, “Just as food makes children grow, the word of God makes Christians grow.” “Just as” gets you ready for a comparison with something you are familiar with. “Just as” should prepare us not to read what follows as introducing an idea about the effects of Adam’s sin that would have been new and unfamiliar to Paul’s original readers. Rather it should prepare us to read what follows as a comparison with what the original readers would have been familiar with about the effects of Adam’s sin. Paul’s readers would not have been familiar with the doctrine of inherited sin. It’s not found in the Old Testament. Rather the OT explicitly teaches that a child does not carry his father’s sin (Ezekiel 18:19-20; Deuteronomy 24:16). Neither is the doctrine found in the New Testament. Rather the NT portrays babies as innocent and precious in the sight of God (I Corinthians 14:20; Matthew 18:10; 19:13-14). I doubt Paul’s readers would have gotten the doctrine from Judaism, which traditionally has rejected the doctrine of original sin. What would Paul’s readers have been familiar with in regard to the effects of Adam’s sin? Simply what we read in the opening chapters of Genesis. The ground was cursed in a way that made farming difficult and Adam and Eve were denied access to the tree of life. So they and their descendants would all die physically. This should lead us to understand the word “death” here in the sense of physical death, not spiritual death. The condemnation for all men, spoken of in verse18, is the condemnation of physical death, not eternal separation from God.

Third, the first theologian we know of in church history to interpret Romans 5:12ff as teaching the doctrine of inherited sin was Augustine in the 5^th century. Most theologians before Augustine read Paul as saying that we inherit Adam’s mortality, and maybe a propensity to sin, but not the guilt of his sin.

Fourth, similar language to Romans 5:12 can be found in multiple 1^st century texts that speak of physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin, and that our individual standing with God and ultimate destiny are based on our own choices.

• 2 Esdras 7:118-119, “O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. For what good is it, if an eternal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? ” In other words while we all die physically as a consequence of Adam’s sin, we also all do so on our own accord as Adam did (that is when we reach an age where we’re able to do so). We all sin. Had we been the first man we too would have eventually done what Adam did.
• 2 Baruch 54:15,19, “For though Adam first sinned and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those who were born from him each one of them has prepared for his own soul torment to come and again each one of them has chose for himself glories to come . . . Adam is therefore not the cause, save only of his own soul, but each of us has been the Adam of his own soul.” It’s saying physical death is the common plight of everyone because of Adam’s sin, yet personal judgment depends upon our own individual choices.
• Pseudo-Philo 13:3-8, has God saying, “That man [the first formed, the protoplast] transgressed my ways and was persuaded by his wife, and she was deceived by the serpent. And then death was ordained for the generations of men.” Lest Adam forget what he had done, the author adds, “The Lord continued to show him the ways of paradise, and said to him, ‘These are the ways that men have lost by not walking in them, because they have sinned against me’” (13:3-8)

A major decision for interpreting this passage has to do with the Greek phrase eph ho in Romans 5:12, translated in most English versions as “because”… “Death spread to all men, eph ho all sinned.” Eph ho is a contraction of the preposition epi (commonly meaning on, upon, over, on the basis of) with the relative pronoun ho (who, which, that).

The last four Greek words of verse 12 were translated in Latin Vulgate in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”). This translation of course was used by Augustine and many after him to justify the doctrine that we were somehow counted as present in Adam’s body when he disobeyed and have thus inherited the guilt of his sin. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek.

However, the rendering of most our English versions is even a bit of a stretch. Leander E. Keck in Abington New Testament Commentary acknowledged this saying,

"Paul added the troublesome phrase “eph ho all sinned,” which NRSV and NIV render as “because all sinned.” Unfortunately, eph ho probably does not mean “because.” Nor does it mean what the Vulgate says: in quo (in whom)—that is, “in whom [Adam] all sinned.” This view, adopted by Augustine, became so firmly entrenched in the West that the Puritan primer (used to teach the alphabet) taught children that A is for Adam “in whose fall we sinnéd all.” The exhaustive investigation by Fitzmyer (1993, 321-39; summarized in his commentary, 413-17) led him to conclude that the words express consequence, not cause (“because”): “Death spread to all human beings, with the result that all have sinned” (so also Talbert 2003)."

“With the result that,” “so that,” “on the basis of which,” “because of which”… is the more natural way to read eph ho. And to me it makes good sense. Death spreading to all men, not to mention the other consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, has created a situation for all of us in which the urge to sin is greater. Would we have such intense desires to supply ourselves with the things our bodies need (food, drink, clothing, shelter) if the benefits of the tree of life were flowing through our veins, if we were immortal? I doubt it. And those desires often lead people to sin. The hardship and misery brought by death around us and thoughts of our own death intensify our desire for pleasure and mental escape and to “live it up” while we have the chance. Death breeds anger and fear in our hearts that can drive us to sin.

This would not have been strange thinking to the ancient Christians. Here’s the explanation of John Meyendorff (Byzantine Theoology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes [New York: Fordham University Press, 1979], 144-45):

"... the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned..."
Mortality, or 'corruption,' or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically... It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense 'corrupts' nature.
For Cyril of Alexandria, humanity after the sin of Adam "fell sick of corruption." Cyril’s opponents, the theologians of the School of Antioch, agreed with him on the consequence of Adam’s sin. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, "by becoming mortal, we acquired greater urge to sin." The necessity of satisfying the needs of the body — food, drink, and other bodily needs — are absent in immortal beings; but among mortals, they lead to "passions," for they present unavoidable means of temporary survival. Theodoret of Cyrus repeats almost literally the arguments of Theodore in his own commentary on Romans, "Having become mortal, [Adam and Eve] conceived mortal children, and mortal beings are a necessarily subject to passions and fears, to pleasures and sorrows, to anger and hatred."

One final thought here. Notice in Romans 5:19 how the way we are “made sinners” by Adam’s act of disobedience is compared with the way we are “made righteous” by Christ’s act of obedience. Are we made righteous by Christ’s obedient sacrifice against our will or without our conscious cooperation? No. His death makes us righteous before God as we choose to respond to it in faith and repentance. Likewise Adam’s disobedience makes us sinners as we choose to respond to the situation he brought into the world by sinning like he did. Romans 5:19a I think is simply another way of putting 5:12, “through one man sin came into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, with the result that all sinned.”

– James Williams