Just to be clear; I don’t insist that the sins of our ancestors have no effect on us at all; we surely do all suffer the consequences of living in a sinful world. And in fact, to the extent that we personally benefit from the sins of others (e.g. maybe I live in a mansion that was built with money my direct ancestors stole from others …) then I bear responsibility to make that right too when I learn of it. I.e. I do think that communities, nations, empires, etc. can and do have such things as ‘original sins’ that forever haunt them. Just ask Abraham Lincoln about that, and look at the U.S. today and only those who keep their eyes squeezed tightly shut and live in a delusional world can deny the all-too-real effects.
All of that follows from our rebellion against God. I don’t know what all falls within the view of Pelagianism that Mr. Allen speaks of - and that is neither here nor there to me. But I will stick with scriptures in this. While the Bible does speak in Deuteronomy (ch. 5) of sins being visited by God upon the children to the third and fourth generations … yet we also read later prophets (in the old testament already!) who decisively put down the notion that God punishes people for sin that is not their own. Read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18. So even in the old testament already, the whole doctrine of trying to just magically pass along moral culpability by some sort of magical biological fiat has already been shown for what it is. There are plenty of all-too-ordinary ways we see our sins ‘visited upon’ those who follow us, so there is no reason to think any of this is too mysterious.
A recent Bible Project podcast episode suggests this shouldn’t be read as God punishing children for their parents’ sin even though they’re personally innocent of it:
They focus on how this language appears in Exodus 34, but also earlier within the Ten Words:
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5–6)
They point out that it goes both ways: the 1000 generations don’t get a free pass because of their ancestors. The children still need to love God and keep the commandments. To read it as if only the initial generation has to love and keep and then the 1000 following are set goes completely against the story Exodus tells. So similarly, the 3–4 generations are only punished for their parents’ idolatry if they themselves reject God.
Put in the context of God as creator, this is probably saying more about God creating the structure of reality in which sin does naturally spread from one generation to another (e.g. alcoholism, abuse), making it easy for children to follow in their parents’ footsteps and receive similar consequences. Rather than the 1000 and 3–4 being some kind of formula, it shows God’s bias towards working for the good in every generation rather than perpetuating the bad.
But regardless, these verses – some of the most-quoted within the Old Testament – say nothing about Adam’s sin being imputed to 1000s of generations so that everyone is sinful from conception. They seem to rule out that kind of idea almost as forcefully as texts like Ezekiel 18.
A certain brand of Calvinist likes to label all understandings of grace from the anabaptist traditions as Pelagianism or semi-Pelgianism. (Because the Calvinists are the rightest people in the world and everyone else is liberal and probably doesn’t understand the Bible.) Just something to be aware of.